Residents of the state should get money for needing to live next to data centers and the use of their land/natural resources/etc, similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund.
They already do, indirectly. The local government gets property taxes from these data centers. But maybe it would be more real for people if you just wrote them a check I guess.
The local government gets property taxes from these data centers.
Not if they get a sweetheart tax deal. Why do you think folks are so pissy? It’s like a sports stadium next to your house in that the principals get tax breaks, eminent domain, and other considerations, but it makes noise every day(not just weekends) and you don’t get to go to the game.
Even with a state sweetheart tax deal, the most populated county in my state gets half of its property tax income from a datacenter. Projection for one in my county looks like it would hit 70%.
tbh I'm more worried about the resource curse from the sudden change in budget
The sweetheart deals are usually from the state, sometimes the county. Town budgets tend to be so small that ~$20m/yr will have the council falling over themselves to approve it.
The problem, from the cases I have looked at, seems to be that towns want to do dumb shit with this money rather than just cut residents a tax break.
Or the towns are not rich enough to fight in a lawsuit after the town council initially says no, which is how my local datacenter was approved against the will of the people
The sweetheart deals I've seen has been the state approving things that mostly affect the locals. A large part of property tax goes to local governments who were given no input in the deal.
I think people are pissy because they're scared of AI and have consumed a lot of misinformation. Most people I know still think that datacenters are going to literally drain the lakes. No one is actually informed on the details, it's all just become a meme at this point.
Unless local governments are getting bribed en masse, literally no municipality would want a datacenter if there wasn't a net benefit. I checked in my area and the datacenters are receiving tax breaks, but they also have to pay into the local school districts and fund the energy infrastructure buildout. Just because tax breaks are part of the deal doesn't mean there isn't a net benefit for the community.
I think people are pissy because they're scared of AI and have consumed a lot of misinformation
Just uninformed, are they? To some extent, perhaps they are. OTOH, tech bros aren’t helping any, with Musk’s Memphis DC being the poster child for why you don’t want a DC in your town. They’ll come to your town, make a bunch of noise and pollution, and dare you to enforce the law. “Can’t happen here”? It’s already happened elsewhere.
No one is actually informed on the details, it's all just become a meme at this point.
Perhaps the principals should be more forthcoming about these deals, rather than springing them on the public after the deal is done, then everyone can be well-informed. As it is, such things have been decided in non-public meetings in enough places to cause some skepticism.
I have no idea where you live, but the exact opposite is true everywhere I've lived in the US south. Big businesses pay next to zero tax while residents and small businesses bear the entire tax burden
Airport jobs are some of the worst possible jobs - poor pay, bad hours, very long effective commutes (when you consider that they don't clock in until after get to the terminal, get through security), and angry customers screaming at you for something that's not your fault.
Lazy/incompetent/annoyed employees is the inevitable outcome of such an environment
That doesn’t change the fact that it’s minimum wage for the location. Doesn’t matter if they earn more than a highly skilled professional in a different country, it doesn’t change the skill set.
FWIW though, I rarely had bad experiences with airport staff. They are just trying to do their jobs in a hectic place and don’t intentionally make our lives difficult.
That it's a near minimum wage job is not actually the fact though. Even the minimum starting salary for an entry level TSA position is higher than the highest minimum wage of any city/county/state in the US. The median TSA salary is also a hair above the median of full time salary in the US.
For the most part I agree most are at least neutral though. I.e. they are there because it's a job, not because they hate people or love people and this job was the way to do that. It's just the ones that do tend to really stand out for people.
TSA are not general workers, they're not the subject of this thread. We mean baggage loaders, ticket booth operators, the people managing the boarding, etc. They're making about as much as they could've made in Amazon warehouse. So their attitude is about the same as at Amazon warehouse. And for their employers, that's okay because it's not like they're going to lose any business due to bad customer service. Commercial flying is the worst it's ever been, and yet there are more passengers than ever before.
In addition to the minimum wage they get paid, it's also the minimum (negative) value they add. There's zero reason to do better at a job that already is a waste of almost everyone's time.
They do add some value, but not those inside the terminal, except the nice people behind the check in counter and the curb luggage assistants (captains?) that will take your luggage, give you the boarding pass, and off you go? Golden. It seems they do well on tips. It's worth every $10-20 bucks or whatever it is now.
It is when you get to the security is where you meet the UpsideDown. Condescending, most all of them, ime.
Everyone you interact with from the moment you enter the airport has that Brooklyn-diner-employee “whaddayawaaaant?” attitude. Like your very presence as a customer annoys them. Everyone is in dire need of customer service training. The DMV is more pleasant.
Yes, exactly. But actually, given what they must be paid they do an admirable job. I can’t truly blame someone for not giving a shit, it’s just frustrating for me when getting on my flight depends on them doing so.
Look, our culture does not reward excellence, so those people are doing the least possible to not get fired. That's kind of the whole American thing in general at this point. Nobody is doing great outside of technology workers, and even then, only some of them. You're not going to have a great experience in general from people here. There are always outliers, but those are individuals who have found some internal motivation to go above and beyond, and it's not a systemic thing.
This is not a US-only airport staff issue. I am on the road most of the last three decades and it is international. It is one, binding "quality" in every country. Most the airport staff's core competency rests elsewhere in almost all airports.
I am hedging because i have had nuggets of exceptional service and support here and there, even in nightmarish hellscapes like Heathrow. Flight attendants are a whole different area of joy and fears...
I have the meta glasses (never wear them outside because of the stigma), and the actual killer feature is the headphones, not the camera/ai stuff. Not the sound quality per se (though it's pretty good and someone else has to be really close to hear leakage on max volume), but it's nice just being able to have a pair of sunglasses on and be able to listen to music and your surroundings while on a walk or cooking without stuff jammed in your ears. And removing the camera stuff will make the glasses look nicer since less tech needed. I know there are brands that specifically do audio only glasses, but "reddit" says they're all middle quality from my research. If anyone has experience, please share.
if it's not in/over your ear the sound quality will be bad anyway, you have plenty of earbuds/headphones options + your preferred sunglasses, any combo will be cheaper and better than these pervert glasses
reply