"Data centers are clean, they pay high taxes, during their construction they pay a lot of blue collar workers and after construction they continue to stimulate the local economy, and they have very little impact on things like local utility costs or housing prices."
You write like it's a simple cut and dry fact and yet there's no source? In fact a quick Google search pulls up tons of studies that contradict this or point to the need for more research and regulation. Stating it so matter-of-factly is misleading.
The community impact of data centers is not inherently positive or negative. Outcomes depend on tariff design, infrastructure cost allocation, environmental regulation and community benefits. Policies that require cost‑reflective electricity pricing, water‑use transparency and local investment can improve outcomes. Conversely, weak oversight increases the risk that communities absorb environmental and financial costs without commensurate benefits.
Who pays for the increased cost of electricity isn’t straightforward. Yue and Zeng’s research suggests communities should ask specific questions about who pays for new infrastructure and how those costs will be distributed. Local utility companies divide costs differently among homeowners, businesses, and large industrial users, including data centers. Because cost-sharing systems vary by state, each data center development is unique.
Increased Utility Rates: Data centers increase local electric utility rates by driving up overall energy demand, which can strain grid capacity and force utilities to invest in costly infrastructure upgrades. These costs are passed on to residents through higher rates. Data centers have also secured long-term power agreements, which reduce the available supply and push prices up for other consumers.
So no, it's not an "obvious fact" and I don't need to be here doing research for you.
If you're going to write articles like this, you should do better to be more honest in your assessments.
You need to reach a much higher standard of evidence to accuse someone of lying here. This is your final warning. You will be banned for any further offenses.
1. Bakertilly: This is not a study and it doesn't show anything. It does not support your point.
2. GT: This is a summary of a preprint which found "data center activation increases local employment by 3.5%, total wages by 5.0%, business establishments by 4.7%, and median household income by 1.9%, while reducing unemployment rates and stimulating building permit activity". This is cut-and-dry, and they reached a similar result on electricity to what I did, here: https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/i-made-a-website-to-monitor-data
3. UMich: This is not a study and it doesn't show anything. It does not support your point.
The obvious facts about data center cleanliness, tax payments, and employment stimulus are not under debate, and the fact that they have very little impact on utility bills isn't either. There is a consensus of data against people like you, who don't even know what a study is.
Not sure we can reliably capture "cause" here. People will often find some moral narrative for choices we make for material reasons, but it's not a one-way interaction - we will also often do the reverse. Causality in two-way interaction is hard to measure.
History is full of experts reasoning that only stupidity can explain people acting against their material interest. When such expertise accumulates, usually there is something interesting being missed.
The huge difference in enthusiasm for AI now vs the internet 30 years ago is not completely unrelated to the smartphone in between. We thought we'd get all this cool stuff for free on our phone, and find ourselves in a state of surveillance which would make the worst Orwellian nightmare look like a paradise of privacy. Struggling to manage our kids addiction while billions are still spent to make that stuff more addictive. Short-videos are frying mankind's brain faster than booze ever did.
So, not sure we can get people to surf the AI wave unless we first fix some of the bad stuff with the previous wave. THAT may help people embrace progress again - probably more than a bunch of stats. Does require taking on the interest of the new oligarchs, though.
Well, it's linked to property prices. If you have a house you don't want a garbage dump next to it. Nor would you want low income housing next to it.
Whereas - with data centers, the problem is that the US social media are extremely permeable to CCP. So they have a very good economic motive to promote data center NIMBYism. Just like in the 1970s, Soviet Union was giving out tons of cash to nuclear disarmement and anti-nuclear energy movements in the West.
What if Data center would take an obligation to supply electricity at this and that cost that is lower than today, to supply water at this and that cost that is lower than today, plus what-ever, plus cash-settlement on top? Would it still elicit NIMBYism?
I mean it is not environmentally loaded. Very much unlike refining rare earths.
I suspect ongoing resource usage (mainly electricity) is a logical conclusion for most people.
Many machines -> high electricity demand. High demand for local resource -> prices go up (general market theory).
The messaging / education challenge is to help people understand the nuance dynamic that majority of electricity cost is fixed not variable. So iiuc from your recent article, more demand -> amortize fixed costs -> lower variable prices. Anecdotally, many intelligent / educated peers seem unaware of this dynamic wrt electricity grid.
A useful education analogy might be describing a flight.
eg
Imagine a flight costs the airline $10k to run from NYC <> MIA return. $2k of that is fuel, other $8k is staff, maintenance, airport fees.
10 passengers buy tickets NYC -> MIA. The airline wants to charge $1k per ticket to cover costs.
But then Anthropic books 40 corporate tickets -> 50 total passengers -> new ticket price only $200 each.
Not only that, but Anthropic books the 40 tickets on the return leg too (data centres use electricity reliably during non-peak hours) -> 90 effective passengers -> new ticket price $110.
Imperfect example but massage it as needed to make the point abt fixed / variable costs.
I would have bet that way. Just like bird choppers.
"Data centers are clean, they pay high taxes, during their construction they pay a lot of blue collar workers and after construction they continue to stimulate the local economy, and they have very little impact on things like local utility costs or housing prices."
You write like it's a simple cut and dry fact and yet there's no source? In fact a quick Google search pulls up tons of studies that contradict this or point to the need for more research and regulation. Stating it so matter-of-factly is misleading.
It is simple and cut-and-dry.
And no, a Google search does not pull up "tons of studies" contradicting this obvious fact.
Why lie about things easily proven false?
https://www.bakertilly.com/insights/data-center-impact-on-local-communities
The community impact of data centers is not inherently positive or negative. Outcomes depend on tariff design, infrastructure cost allocation, environmental regulation and community benefits. Policies that require cost‑reflective electricity pricing, water‑use transparency and local investment can improve outcomes. Conversely, weak oversight increases the risk that communities absorb environmental and financial costs without commensurate benefits.
https://www.gatech.edu/news/2026/07/09/data-centers-are-booming-who-benefits
Who pays for the increased cost of electricity isn’t straightforward. Yue and Zeng’s research suggests communities should ask specific questions about who pays for new infrastructure and how those costs will be distributed. Local utility companies divide costs differently among homeowners, businesses, and large industrial users, including data centers. Because cost-sharing systems vary by state, each data center development is unique.
https://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/sites/stpp/files/2025-07/stpp-data-centers-2025.pdf
Increased Utility Rates: Data centers increase local electric utility rates by driving up overall energy demand, which can strain grid capacity and force utilities to invest in costly infrastructure upgrades. These costs are passed on to residents through higher rates. Data centers have also secured long-term power agreements, which reduce the available supply and push prices up for other consumers.
So no, it's not an "obvious fact" and I don't need to be here doing research for you.
If you're going to write articles like this, you should do better to be more honest in your assessments.
You need to reach a much higher standard of evidence to accuse someone of lying here. This is your final warning. You will be banned for any further offenses.
1. Bakertilly: This is not a study and it doesn't show anything. It does not support your point.
2. GT: This is a summary of a preprint which found "data center activation increases local employment by 3.5%, total wages by 5.0%, business establishments by 4.7%, and median household income by 1.9%, while reducing unemployment rates and stimulating building permit activity". This is cut-and-dry, and they reached a similar result on electricity to what I did, here: https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/i-made-a-website-to-monitor-data
3. UMich: This is not a study and it doesn't show anything. It does not support your point.
The obvious facts about data center cleanliness, tax payments, and employment stimulus are not under debate, and the fact that they have very little impact on utility bills isn't either. There is a consensus of data against people like you, who don't even know what a study is.
Not sure we can reliably capture "cause" here. People will often find some moral narrative for choices we make for material reasons, but it's not a one-way interaction - we will also often do the reverse. Causality in two-way interaction is hard to measure.
History is full of experts reasoning that only stupidity can explain people acting against their material interest. When such expertise accumulates, usually there is something interesting being missed.
The huge difference in enthusiasm for AI now vs the internet 30 years ago is not completely unrelated to the smartphone in between. We thought we'd get all this cool stuff for free on our phone, and find ourselves in a state of surveillance which would make the worst Orwellian nightmare look like a paradise of privacy. Struggling to manage our kids addiction while billions are still spent to make that stuff more addictive. Short-videos are frying mankind's brain faster than booze ever did.
So, not sure we can get people to surf the AI wave unless we first fix some of the bad stuff with the previous wave. THAT may help people embrace progress again - probably more than a bunch of stats. Does require taking on the interest of the new oligarchs, though.
AI is already making internet addiction worse.
NIMBY is a pillar of human nature.
Well, it's linked to property prices. If you have a house you don't want a garbage dump next to it. Nor would you want low income housing next to it.
Whereas - with data centers, the problem is that the US social media are extremely permeable to CCP. So they have a very good economic motive to promote data center NIMBYism. Just like in the 1970s, Soviet Union was giving out tons of cash to nuclear disarmement and anti-nuclear energy movements in the West.
What if Data center would take an obligation to supply electricity at this and that cost that is lower than today, to supply water at this and that cost that is lower than today, plus what-ever, plus cash-settlement on top? Would it still elicit NIMBYism?
I mean it is not environmentally loaded. Very much unlike refining rare earths.
I suspect ongoing resource usage (mainly electricity) is a logical conclusion for most people.
Many machines -> high electricity demand. High demand for local resource -> prices go up (general market theory).
The messaging / education challenge is to help people understand the nuance dynamic that majority of electricity cost is fixed not variable. So iiuc from your recent article, more demand -> amortize fixed costs -> lower variable prices. Anecdotally, many intelligent / educated peers seem unaware of this dynamic wrt electricity grid.
A useful education analogy might be describing a flight.
eg
Imagine a flight costs the airline $10k to run from NYC <> MIA return. $2k of that is fuel, other $8k is staff, maintenance, airport fees.
10 passengers buy tickets NYC -> MIA. The airline wants to charge $1k per ticket to cover costs.
But then Anthropic books 40 corporate tickets -> 50 total passengers -> new ticket price only $200 each.
Not only that, but Anthropic books the 40 tickets on the return leg too (data centres use electricity reliably during non-peak hours) -> 90 effective passengers -> new ticket price $110.
Imperfect example but massage it as needed to make the point abt fixed / variable costs.