If you are trying to take on the hyperscalers why not push for UBI vs trying to stop the buildout? Is the former really that much more difficult than the latter? Is it even good policy beyond not wanting something in your own backyard?
I don't see why you think that. Its something that:
1) These CEOs and people with power want
2) The populace has some degree of control over, since its local politics vs national.
That makes it an attractive way to push back against powerful people that they see as operating in bad faith. It seems like their chances here are much better than trying to go directly to congress and advocating for UBI.
You have control over who you vote for. Congress is not elected nationally. Sorry I just don't see how your points make sense. You might have better success of pushing the data centers off to your neighbor. But this doesn't stop the buildout, it only gives certain neighborhoods temporary protection while economic conditions for most continue to deteriorate. Aka a false sense of security and therefore a bad idea.
> This doesn't make sense. The reason Congress is difficult is because of those same powerful people.
Its much easier to put someone who is aligned with your values into a local political position than congress. And its much more likely that your neighbors will vote in a way that aligns with your interests. And you won't get overridden by a congressman from several states away that has different incentives.
Yes, people building data centers can just shop for a new location. But resistance to data centers appears to be pretty correlated with living in communities that are good places to data center, at least anecdotally.
The world I'm looking in is one where citizens pushing back locally has seemed to get at least some measure of success, albeit spotty, whereas attempts to lobby Congress about AI has been screaming into the void. Frankly, I think your position here is completely divorced from what is actually happening in reality.
It's a bad idea. The few communities that succeed are still going to suffer the macro consequences of data centers being built in the next town over.
If there were serious macro consequences then maybe it would be an issue but from the point of view of the communities -- there aren't. Data centers don't bring a lot of permanent employment and tend to be given tax breaks. They are skeptical that data centers are the boon that these people claim they are -- and they are right to be so since people pushing these data centers have been wildly untrustworthy at best.
Saying "You can't stop it so you might as well get on board and hope that in the future you can convince shareholders/billionaires/US Congress to give you a pittance of UBI" is going to go over like a lead brick. There's no reason to trust that UBI will come if you give up any leverage you have, even if it is a minuscule amount of leverage.
I think I'm more curious why more serious advocacy of UBI itself isn't a major platform vs the things I hear often about data centers.
I think in some ways you have touched on that but also as your comment indicates perhaps as part of negotiations as things develop UBI will come more into the forefront. I just see a lot of national politics also around data centers but relatively few on UBI. Again, if you agree that at best this is an "inconvenience" to the status quo then I would think you would also share my surprise or maybe hope that stronger voices should emerge promoting a more sustainable solution - aka UBI.
Sometimes it feels like data centers are just a distraction from that more far reaching and yet necessary conversation. Perhaps it is simply a prelude. Thanks for the discussion.
And then the same court creates the "conservatives win you loose" set of made up bogus rules.
I'm really not trying to be rude, but have you followed US politics or history at all? Is this a serious question? Yes, it is incomprehensibly harder to fundamentally change the fabric and structure of society, especially in a way that involves giving "free" money to people, than it is to prevent something from being built.
Trying to control something by merely protecting your own backyard never works. America has reinvented its own social contract many times, it's why we are still here 250 years later. What side would you have been on in the lead up to the civil war? The nothing ever happens side? Or civil rights? Or the New Deal? The world wars?
America has changed profoundly since the founding. Yes change is hard. So is a nation surviving for 250 years. The point is why politically agitate for a mid outcome. American politics is frequently defined by its aspirational nature. Have you read the founding documents? I mean I don't mean to be rude.
> American politics is frequently defined by its aspirational nature.
That part I agree with, though I would say maybe 'fantasy-based' may be better descriptor than 'aspirational' at present. Democrats for example think making a few billionaire sell their yachts would pay for universal healthcare forever (when current Medicare just for old people alone costs 1,118,000,000,000 a year), and Republicans think we can ban abortion and then no one will have anymore abortions.
[1] 45% support for a measly $1000 UBI in 2020 - a time that arguably was the best shot at people considering it! https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/19/more-amer...
Maybe a Democrat President who actually pitched UBI with the same gusto as the current president talked about "they're eating the cats and dogs" would do well. Polls are really useless when it comes to predictive power. If the last 10 years haven't taught you that I guess nothing ever well.
Like dude, 250 years is not exactly impressive amount of time.
Also AI side is not civil rights side. Nor new deal side. And it is dubious which side it would take in WWII. (We know grok side - nazi, but others)
The United States is actually quite remarkable for 250 years of government under the same constitution. Please give some counter examples I'll wait.