The AI boom is showing up in blue-collar labor markets. Manufacturers like Southeastern Hose in Bremen, Georgia, which makes piping components for data centers, have grown rapidly — the company added 40 percent to its workforce in 18 months. Labor economist Michael Rosenbaum says the bigger story is not AI replacing workers but accelerating the pace at which jobs are created, transformed, and displaced. The challenge, he argues, is identifying and training workers quickly enough to fill roles in electrical engineering, HVAC, and cable installation.
Yet the same construction wave is generating local backlash. Shenandoah University professor Michael Hicks, who has studied data centers since the early 1990s, says developers often overpromise jobs and tax benefits. His research suggests permanent labor-market effects are muted, with few facilities employing substantial numbers beyond the build-out phase. Brookings Institution research agrees that local economic impact depends heavily on the type of data center and that the evidence base has not kept pace with the debate.
Hicks still supports data centers, but for fiscal reasons rather than employment. When taxed like households, they can dramatically expand a community's property tax base. He cites Loudon County, Virginia, where average property taxes have dropped by $3,400 since 2020 because of data center construction. That extra revenue can also fund services and amenities that offset noise and grid strain. Meanwhile, some states continue to offer tax breaks that Hicks calls undeserved and bad economics.
The tension is visible on the ground. Southeastern Hose's Trey Travis says his company relies on local trade schools and high schools for work-based learning, though some specialized welding still requires on-site training. In southern Virginia, Microsoft's Boydton data center has helped spur credential programs at community colleges. Whether such local benefits can overcome skepticism about developer promises remains an open question. As Brookings puts it, the economics are moving fast — but the evidence is not keeping up.