171–180 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compete for what exactly, in this case?
Capital, assets, jobs.
This was well known before the AI boom - see this study from back in 2016:
https://goodjobsfirst.org/study-state-and-local-governments-...
The numbers are even less favorable today.
Question: why are these huge data centers being built in remote regions and small towns?
Answer: because the companies building the data centers are essentially getting free power and water at the expense of the area's citizens. The only locals who benefit from these projects are the politicians giving the land away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's tempting to blame any political outcome you don't like on lobbying. It allows you to believe that almost no one supports the outcome that you don't like, because you can blame it on politicians manage to be bought by a small number of lobbyists. But it might not be the case. Several states (I believe Texas, Georgia, and Indiana) don't charge sales tax to data centers. So from Louisiana's perspective, the alterna…
Well said: why does a tax break bother people so much? That feels pretty populist to me: data centers of this magnitude offer a ton of economic benefits to the area and the state, 3.3B in tax breaks are the price to pay to incentivize them to bring the business to the area, which will then provide a net positive financial benefit. I can see plenty of problems with data center construction that should definitely be ad…
> data centers of this magnitude offer a ton of economic benefits to the area and the state
Electricity cost increases are subsidized by residents: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-data-centers-may-lead-to-h...
Job creation is extremely minimal - data center build outs have some of the lowest job creation numbers per $ spent: https://goodjobsfirst.org/study-state-and-local-governments-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not at all surprised to learn that Republican politicians royally screwed their constituents. I was going to say maybe these people will vote better next time just to read that Colorado governor is commuting the sentence of Tina Peters. Democratic leadership is so freaking weak it's unbelievable. With one party full of grifters and the other with full of weaklings, we need to abolish this two-party system.
Don’t worry, if you take a step back it’s been a one party system for decades already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is how everyone decision works, yes. That's why you want limited government. Voting where you can't vote with your money is a very low-quality, delayed signal.
If you assume that decision makers operate entirely in silo from their constituents then yes, that's how this works. Howver if you are operating in the normal mode of democracy where decision makers consult impacted parties through town halls, solicited feedback, subcommittees, etc etc then there are ample opportunities to obtain high-quality, low-latency signals. "Voting with your money" is (IM personal O) a scapego…
Most places have two parties, each of which has a position on several thousand issues. You have two choices: combination A of the several thousand issues, or combination B. You don't get to choose with any more granularity than that.
> not to mention the massive power imbalance that results from people with lots of money 'voting' way more than people with less money
This is a power rectification. If you have two streaming services and one is bad, that bad one will fairly quickly receive far less money as people vote with their wallets. That's not rich people with thousands of accounts "voting" for the winner, it's just a more direct system of people choosing with money.
Politics has a far stronger link to an individual's money swaying decisions than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capital, assets, jobs.
Per $ spent, data centers are one of the worst "job creators". This was well known before the AI boom - see this study from back in 2016: https://goodjobsfirst.org/study-state-and-local-governments-... The numbers are even less favorable today.
Will the earth’s climate get tax breaks too? What about the people living around these and paying for taxes. What about zero sum game we have here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This poster likes to demand evidence of others ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48135626 ) and bristle when the same standard is applied to them ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48137932 ). Someone else did provide evidence, though: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48153756
> someone else did provide evidence Some 16 minutes after he asked the question, so that's not an excuse for criticism of the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This poster likes to demand evidence of others ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48135626 ) and bristle when the same standard is applied to them ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48137932 ). Someone else did provide evidence, though: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48153756
> someone else did provide evidence Some 16 minutes after he asked the question, so that's not an excuse for criticism of the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The choice unfortunately often boils down to choosing between blatant psychopathy or completely useless platitudes. Yes. A vote for Democrats results in less harm. But Democrats are never actually willing to address the problems. Democrats would rather reach across the aisle than actually help people as has been proven out ever since my very first eligible vote for Obama. Some Democrats promise "Hope and Change" but…
100%. Obama squandered people's mandate...twice. I wish more mainstream (i.e., non socialist) Democratic politicians had strong convictions like Mamdani.
Mamdani is basically doing the same thing other Dems do, only the Internet lefties give him the benefit of the doubt/kudos instead of the piling on they give Dems. Abigail Spanberger has been insanely effective yet gets zero of the kudos Mamdani gets because she's just a Dem.