headcount doesn't have to be granular, it has to be accurate. this is about the very useful street- and block-level data.
also, if how would anyone know how accurate the "transparent" number is? if Trump or Thiel can fuck with the fuzzing they can just as do so with the base data.
As an investor it's really important for me to see this kind of bearish sentiment widely. It's actually a positive for the stock in my opinion, not a negative.
Cars were not a new technology either when they went nuts on highway infrastructure which ruined the city centers. Perhaps if they had slowed down and studied the impacts before bulldozing neighborhood for highways some damage might have been prevented.
There's a serious concern that we're in a bubble and many of the pending disruptions to land use and infrastructure might be soon abandoned with no one left to clean up the mess
What mess? It's a big empty metal box with a heck of an HVAC system and a parking lot sized for industrial use. Just about any less specialized use could be pivoted to at any point during or after construction.
These things only become static "messes" or "blighted" because regulation prevents fire sale and pivot to a new use from being viable.
Edit: People really seem to be ignoring the sentence prior to this edit. For a hundred years it was common for old industrial sites of all shapes and forms to have their equipment if any remained scrapped and then be subdivided among small tenants. Most space leased by smaller businesses in the eastern half of the country probably fell into this category until fairly recently.
I lived for many years in the rust belt -- abandoned industrial properties aren't particularly attractive to have in your community. Nor are they attractive to industry unless they're already outfitted for their particular use.
Many of these projects are making messes to local infrastructure, the construction and municipal costs associated with that, the wear on local roads, etc. And abandoned buildings are a mess because of their lack of maintenance.
Data centers are not industrial. It’s a 6” slab with prefabricated walls, bar joists, and a metal roof. There’s no continuous distillation column, smelter, fly ash pond, tailings pond, or anything remotely industrial.
Data centers are essentially an Amazon distribution center that is filled with servers instead of racking with a shitload of electrical and HVAC equipment.
I use the definitions that the entire construction industry uses. A data center is commercial. A distribution center is commercial. A plastic injection molding company or machine shop is commercial. An oil refinery, grain mill, or power plant is industrial.
Nobody is concerned about the quantity of land used by an active datacenter.
Local municipalities are having to upgrade municipal infrastructure as a result of these projects -- which wouldn't be too bad, if they can be guaranteed the tax revenue to pay for those things -- and the employer sticks around and maintains their property.
But in a bubble, it is foreseeable that many of these properties will go under when the bubble pops, and local municipalities will be left footing the bill without the tax revenue.
Part of the idea behind a moratorium is to allow time for impact analysis so those regulations can be written appropriately.
Part of the reason we have big tech getting away with regulatory capture in the US is because they have enough capital to entrench themselves in the economy faster than regulators can react.
Will they also pay for rolling back the infrastructure and restoring the land to its previous state after they go bust and no longer need the data centre?
The mad rush to build datacenters at this unprecedented scale is already wreaking havoc on the consumer economy. The needs of everyday people are far more important than the whims of a few trillion dollar tech companies run by billioinaires.
Anything that slows their expansion will at least delay some of the impact on RAM and GPU prices since they aren't buying up GPUs until the places are built. In the meantime NY doesn't have to deal with the harmful environmental and health impacts.
The data centers will ultimately end up being built elsewhere, until those places start pushing back. Without federal protections for the environment or the people all we can do is hope that state, county and city governments step up to make sure that data centers aren't harming them directly.
I would think that consumers would vastly benefit from cheaper software, nearly unlimited cloud storage, lower property taxes. Heck, the next generation of data centers are looking like they will actually be net energy producers.
Consumers might not know that they benefit from data centers, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t
Consumers across the US are the residents. They're the same people. Especially when it comes to those living around data centers. The CEOs of amazon, google, and microsoft aren't living next to data centers and being subjected to the worst of the harms those data centers cause. The people who live near data centers are the consumers of those companies (while also being the products those companies sell). The consumers buying RAM and GPUs are the same people suffering from the pollution data centers cause and paying the price for the environmental harms. We are the consumers. You, me, and our families.
Nearly unlimited cloud storage - AWS / Google / etc. Data centers are the Cloud
Lower property taxes - data centers increase the property tax base, creating tax compression, which shift property tax from consumer –> company. I'm in Texas, so can only be sure that is true here. I have not looked at all other states.
Cheaper software: where is this cheaper software? Most users don't pay for most software. Facebook/Instagram are introducing paid plans now. LLM companies are seemingly starting to increase prices.
Unlimited cloud storage: Where are consumers getting unlimited cloud storage from? I'm not aware of AWS/Google/others reducing prices/providing unlimited plans.
Oh stop. Both of those are a bit ridiculous. We are talking about the sudden surge of data centers, the past 1-3 years, not the 20 prior to that.
Sourcing a tweet that doesn't have a real source (saying source: BLS without an actual reference to BLS isn't a source) is worthless.
Consumers don't buy software, they buy services. Whether or not that is captured by your source in the "Computer Software" is unknown, since I don't have the source. FRED via BLS has PPI for software publishers going up in the last ~6 years, but that's not exactly analogous to consumer spend.
When you say 2tb for $9 is unfathomable if you travel back in time, yes obviously if you go back to floppy days it's comical. Cloud storage prices have been the same for a decade now (pre LLM boom).
So software may or may not be cheaper for consumers (hard to say, nobody buys software). And in real dollars cloud storage is cheaper because of inflation. Not sure what the significant gain is.
My original list was just some brief examples, all of which I think hold up, but not nearly the entire list of data center benefits to all consumers. (One of those other benefits being the means to have this very conversation). There isn’t much of a way I can see to remove data centers from the technological progress we’ve benefited from over the last couple of decades.
> There isn’t much of a way I can see to remove data centers from the technological progress we’ve benefited from over the last couple of decades.
That's not really the argument.
The problem with the tweet is that the chart kind of sucks, and it isn't immediately obvious. The category cited is "Computer Software and Accessories" which is under "Information Technology, Commodities"
A more interesting category is "Video and Audio services," specifically the live streaming subcategory. People don't buy software anymore, they pay for subscriptions to services.
So IT price index is down, frankly to a huge degree. But that includes hardware, so it's hard to draw conclusions about software pricing from that specific chart. But Video/Audio services have seen a fairly sizable increase in index in the last decade.
But that's not really very important. We are talking about price indexes, which do tell us roughly how expensive something is over time, but who cares about the price of basketballs unless that's something I plan on buying as a consumer? The BLS charts give a relative importance which we can use a proxy for "how much a price change would affect the consumer." The relative important of the IT category (linked) is 0.745, but the software subcategory is 0.029. Video/audio and live streaming are 0.595 and 0.185, respectively.
Consumers do not purchase software. Companies don't even bother trying to sell software to consumers. The chart linked is tracking a metric that doesn't matter, because it's not important to consumers.
I think your point on costs here is right. I was treating “computer software” as anything that consumers use: apps that provide a service for free in exchange for data, etc.
To my understanding Apple's supply contracts have allowed them to keep prices flat compared to other brands, but the price of non-Mac desktops and laptops are absolutely ballooning right now because of the supply of memory chips. Apple themselves just last month increased the base price of the Mac Mini by 33% from $599 to $799.
It seems to me that anyone going out of their way to compare current prices against prices from five or more years ago to adjust for inflation is not the average consumer, and shouldn't be juxtaposed as such.
High margin products are often the last to be impacted at retail because the seller has some cushion. And the impacts are only just getting started. We see the MacBook Neo with a somewhat sad 8GB RAM, most likely due to this. We'll see a combination of just plain higher prices (Steam Deck and Switch 2 have both gone up) and shrinkflation in the form of lower specs.
The Macbook Neo is 8GB because the A18 Pro has 8GB memory baked into its sandwich-style package at TSMC. The way these SoCs are constructed doesn't lend itself to having it paired with an arbitrary choice in memory specification the way other laptops do.
And Apple has longer-term contracts for delivery of their chips. Apple is more insulated from short term supply shocks because of this, and their giant pile of cash. But even they have discontinued some high-RAM configurations because of the situation.
As you mention, products elsewhere that use RAM have already gone up in price.
The data centers being built due to the AI bubble are predominately increasing costs for public utilities. Many localities are having to make significant investments to keep the lights on and increasing rates for everyone.
If half of these datacenters go out of business next year, it will get even worse when mom and pop will be left with the bill for these projects.
I don't see a widespread issue in keeping the lights on, outside of the Lake Tahoe fubar.
Considering utility rates, I would happily pay more for utilities in the short term to have 30+ years of lower property taxes. The data centers property taxes would go to paying for that buildout, and over time it's a great deal for consumers. That said, I'm in Texas so the property tax issue is more prevalent than it would be in New York.
Lake Tahoe might be the only area literally with issues keeping the lights on, but many more are facing rate hikes and debt spending to build out infrastructure and keep up with increases in demand for utilities.
The prevailing idea is that we're currently in a bubble, especially when it comes to AI hyperscalers, and that the tax revenue will decline when the bubble pops.
Also, not all localities have updated their public utility regs to appropriately assign the costs of infrastructure projects to these new projects. Many, like NoVA have just recently added new utility rate classes specifically for data centers to attempt to do that. In other places, these costs are often are being split among the existing utility customers.
Most people I've spoken to in private hate AI in tech too, they just keep quiet out of fear for their job (voice any objection to AI? next on the chopping block), so you only hear the pro AI voices.
I think many of us actually have a moral stance on AI, it's just that it's somewhat similar to our moral stance on cars, power tools, heavy machinery, the loom, etc.
I'm learning this week that Congress has only authorized money for a CIA agent to stash $40m in gold bars in his home but not for the United States to take an equity stake in the future of computing.
But just like a low-interest rate mortgage, I'm going to be stuck with this thing for a long time, it seems.
reply