Slashdot Mirror


Apple To Build $1.3 Billion Iowa Data Center, Get $208 Million In Incentives (cnbc.com)

CEO Tim Cook said on Thursday that Apple will invest at least $1.3 billion in the first phase of an Iowa data center project. The data center will be built near Waukee, Iowa, creating 50 permanent jobs with more than 550 jobs supported by construction, Apple said in a statement. CNBC reports: "Apple is going to continue to invest in that future, for Waukee, for Iowa and for America," Cook said. It will get $208 million in state and local tax benefits, according to The Associated Press. "Apple has been searching for the perfect location and I am so proud to say that they found it right here in Iowa," Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said, noting the state's educated workforce, stable climate and low-cost, renewable energy. "Iowa workers give companies a leg up at the start.... it is just a blessing to be in the heartland of America." The 400,000-square-foot data center will "strengthen the relationships" in Iowa, where 30 Apple suppliers, including 3M and Qorvo, already operate, Cook said.

54 comments

  1. Dear Iowa... by MetricT · · Score: 2

    I'll be happy to create one job if you give me $26 million. I will be sitting at home awaiting the check arrival so I can start. Thanks.

    1. Re:Dear Iowa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're actually giving $4.16 million per job for the 50 that they're creating ($208 million / 50 people). Try asking for only $4.16 million and maybe they'll bite.

    2. Re:Dear Iowa... by galabar · · Score: 2

      If you are willing to build a billion dollar data center, they might be interested.

    3. Re:Dear Iowa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because their families own the construction companies who will get the short term benefit - which is vastly less than $1.3 billion.

      Most of the cost of a data center goes to the equipment manufactured elsewhere, in this case largely overseas.

    4. Re:Dear Iowa... by msauve · · Score: 1

      And what are the property taxes IA is giving incentives on? A quick search says "The state's average effective property tax rate is 1.44%". So, that $1.3 billion dollar factory would be taxed at $18.7 million/year. IA only gets ahead of their $208M incentive after 11+ years. I'd guess Apple is expecting a faster ROI than that. Even worse, the tax incentive includes a $20M rebate on sales tax, so IA starts out in the hole (so call it 10 years of property tax incentive).

      What keeps Apple around when the tax incentive ends and they can just go for a similar deal from some other state to build a new data center to replace their antiquated 10 year old one which is in need of a refresh anyway? Other than 450 short term jobs and 50 10 year ones, what's in it for IA?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Dear Iowa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "state's average effective property tax rate is 1.44%". "
      The average effective tax rate on an empty parcel of land will be well below the state average. If you are going to argue a position invest the time to track down the real instead of average tax rate used in your calculations.

      Companies have been cutting tax deals with states ever since the US was firsts divided up into states.

      "just go for a similar deal from some other state to build a new data center to replace their antiquated 10 year old one "
      Ah for fuck's sake! So you assume that Apple will build out the data center and then make no changes or upgrades for 10 years?

      Why do people have any complaints about a company building a data center that will create jobs where none existed before? The tax incentives in the deal is money the state is not currently collecting and would never collect unless the property was actually put to work. Apple is going to put he property to work. The state has other tax revenue sources that they will see an increase in because of this project. The state isn't losing money they are just making less in one facet tax revenue structure.

      On the other hand fuck it. Let them build there data center in China and move the fuck on.

    6. Re:Dear Iowa... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      What is in it for IA, campaign donations for the next election as a percentage of the tax cheating. Now I understand under law, all are meant to be treated equal, so why do some fuckers get taxed less upon an individual discriminatory basis whilst all the rest of the citizens pay taxes, gees I seem to remember something in the US constitution, how individualised laws were illegal and all must be treated equally but obviously campaign donations over rule that pesky little law when it comes to cheating on taxes.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:Dear Iowa... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I will happily create as many jobs as you want for $1m/job. I guarantee that the jobs will be around for at least 10 years. Even counting overheads, that's enough that I can pocket half the money and pay people to do nothing.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Dear Iowa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If consumer level products are any indicator, we all know that M$ can open a data center for only 2 million per job in tax incentives.

  2. Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    in the Dem primaries!

    You heard it here first.

    1. Re:Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Zuckerberg will run R
      Cook is way to smart to run at all. /This is why we have bozo for president, smart people stay away

    2. Re:Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree. Zuckerburg will basically run as a Schwarzenegger-style Republican.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll get trashed in the primaries. The right despises Zuck the Cuck.

    4. Re:Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Zuckerberg will run R

      Then he's got no shot. Republicans hate him.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      Great slogan: "Vote for Cook/Zuckerberg: all the personality and ineptitude of Trump, combined with all the lousy policies of Hillary Clinton!"

      How could that not be a winning ticket?

    6. Re:Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      It's so awful it just might work. I mean if you listen to anyone, whatever candidates are running are somehow the worst the party has every fielded. I can't wait another decade or so when whoever we have is so bad that people are looking back favorably on Trump.

    7. Re:Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Does the right, or is it just a pack of whining alt right snowflakes? You and your I'll are going to find out how little you actually matter as swing voters begin to put pressure on the GOP.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re: Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2

      What is an 'alt-right snowflake'? If you are going to try to appropriate political namecalls, at least have an idea going into it what you might mean.

    9. Re: Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Whining little brats who blame everyone else for their inadequacies.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by unixisc · · Score: 1

      There won't be any primary on the (R) side - Republicans - even Never Trumpers - will be too scared to run. Last year too, they were scared of him when they were already in the race, and only hit out at him when it was clear that his nomination was inevitable.

      Even on the (D) side, they will have trouble finding candidates - aside from the Resistance people. Problems is that mainstream Dems will have the same trouble that the Republicans had against Bill Clinton in 1996 - running against a president when the economy is doing well. And the fringe leftists always do better in street mobs than they do in elections, which is why Bernie - despite being vindicated after Hilary's defeat - couldn't win a single Dem primary, be it DNC chair or any of the congressional elections in MT, KS, GA or SC. They'll probably put Pocahontas or Kamala Harris, and she'll go down in flames, probably losing every battleground state that Hilary won.

    11. Re:Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by unixisc · · Score: 1

      All the Right. Not just your 'alt.right snowflakes', but even establishment Republicans know Zuckerberg's bias towards the Left, and are not likely to support him even against Trump. Ideally, they'd like someone like Ben Sass or Jeff Flake to run against him, but given the way Trump mopped the floor w/ 16 other GOP candidates last year, I doubt that anyone will dare run against him

    12. Re: Tim Cook vs. Mark Zuckerberg 2020 by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Snowflake can't handle the fact that the entire Left is in meltdown and has still not gotten over Trump's victory, and so is engaging in projection. Snowflakes are mainly on the Left - kids who've graduated w/o being taught how to pick their POVs and debate them!

  3. $4m per job by Ian+Whitchurch · · Score: 1

    And this is why the US can't have nice things any more.

    1. Re:$4m per job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the world of automation. A data center is amongst the most advanced example of what automation does to jobs. 50 jobs to do more calculations every day than what the entire human race has done manually in all of time.

      We will never again see a fifth of our population working in these types of corporate jobs because they don't need it.

      We have to come up with a means to maintain (or actually restore) a balanced distribution of wealth while undergoing an ever-decreasing demand for the output of humans.

    2. Re:$4m per job by hord · · Score: 1

      Electrolytes. We will have them make and buy electrolytes.

    3. Re:$4m per job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not just hand me $4 million tax free. i bet i do more good with my share than this ever will.

    4. Re:$4m per job by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Data centres produce a lot of jobs for sysadmin / SRE people, software developers, and so on. The problem for the state is that most of these jobs have no reason to be geographically close to the data centre. You need a few people to pull dead machines and rack replacements, and to maintain the power / cooling systems, everything else is remote.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Problem is... Data centers do not create jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone should tell the authorities that data centers need 'lots' of electricity, and don't create jobs. You need a landlord, and a guy to replace the hard disks.

  5. Buying jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The state will spend $208M to get 50 "permanent" and 550 temporary jobs. Let's say the "permanent" jobs last for 10 years before Apple decides to pull the plug and the temporary jobs last 1 year. Instead of giving Apple $208M, if the state just gave each "worker" US$198,000 per year, they would break even. The temporary workers would get 198K and the permanent workers 1.98M. All for the same price they are paying Apple for jobs that probably earn workers only US$45K-50K instead.
    Hey, give 5200 people a "basic living stipend" of US$40K and see what sort of small businesses they can develop within one year that will help employ more than 50 people permanently.

    1. Re:Buying jobs by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      That's some really bad math. If you read the story, Apple is only getting $19.6 million back in the form of a refund on state sales tax. That's what the state is actually spending or paying to Apple.

      The other benefits are the state not collecting some part or all property taxes from the land Apple will be building on. They really only spend the difference between what they collect now and what they'll get from Apple, and may still come out ahead if Apple ends up paying at a reduced rate (what land is zoned for affects the property taxes in most states) that is still in excess of what the state collects now. It's also necessary to factor in income tax for the permanent jobs as well as from the construction jobs that go into it, property tax from the houses that these employees will live in, as well as sales tax as a result of additional spending that results from that income.

    2. Re:Buying jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also necessary to factor in income tax for the permanent jobs as well as from the construction jobs that go into it, property tax from the houses that these employees will live in, as well as sales tax as a result of additional spending that results from that income.

      Your argument appears to be that collecting 7.92% (Iowa tax rate $46,620 - $69,930) is going to make up for the $19.6 million dollars loss.
      If Apple pays US$60K per employee that is $4,752 per year in tax revenue. That is just 4124 employee-years of revenue. Should pay off the Iowa investment in 71 years or so.
      Your argument appears to be that the state would not otherwise collect property tax from the employee houses. It seems odd to assume that 100% of the employees will only own properly if Apple hires them. It also assumes that 100% of the employees would otherwise spend no money and generate no sales tax. Interesting math.
      How about we instead assume most of these people would have other jobs and are just switching to work for Apple and thus would have very little impact on the state and local economy. 50 new employees are not going to provide enough revenue to justify $19.6 million dollars in direct payments to Apple.

    3. Re:Buying jobs by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Your argument appears to be that the state would not otherwise collect property tax from the employee houses.

      Those houses may not exist yet. Even if you assume Apple hires 50 people from Iowa, it isn't as though the companies at which those employees used to work suddenly have no need of their labor, which means you're pulling in some number of new people to the state. Assuming 20 new homes are built in the area, that's another $2,756 per home (based on info from this website). Those employees are also going to spend money in the state which results in sales tax being collected. At some point if you bring in enough people other new industry is going to spring up to support the demands of those consumers. I don't know how much new industry 50 people produces, but it's not zero.

      seems odd to assume that 100% of the employees will only own properly if Apple hires them. It also assumes that 100% of the employees would otherwise spend no money and generate no sales tax. Interesting math.

      How about we instead assume most of these people would have other jobs and are just switching to work for Apple and thus would have very little impact on the state and local economy.

      Again, these employees have to come from somewhere and even if they're already in Iowa, the companies they are leaving are going to need to replace them. Either that means drawing in existing laborers from out of state or retaining recent graduates just entering the workforce who would have gone elsewhere for employment. I suspect there's going to be a mix of those things happening.

      You also ignore the possibility that the state is actually getting more money in property taxes after Apple starts using the land. It's also possible they're getting less and they're spending more than just $19.6 million because they would be losing property tax revenue. That needs to be accounted for as well, so it's quite difficult to determine how the state shakes out on the deal until you know exactly what terms were agreed to there.

    4. Re:Buying jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what you have their is still lost revenue. You could say lost revenue to other states if you like if the only reason they got the DC is because of tax. The reality is they are enabling shitbags like apple to shop around between states to remove more and more of their tax burdens. The reality here is 208 million dollars has been given to apple from the various state coffers.

  6. ROI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    50 permanent jobs, $4 million a job, hmmmm sounds like an outstanding investment on the states part.

  7. Let's see how this spins by freddieb · · Score: 1

    Trump will crow on this one. Let's see how many jobs are to be created. I am not even sure the Foxcon deal was very good. It's a global economy now.

  8. Tim Cook: horrible negotiator. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Foxconn just took away his title, they just wrangled a $3B package from the rubes in Wisconsin.

    1. Re:Tim Cook: horrible negotiator. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe these are largely tax credits. Whereas Wisconsin will actually being paying out subsidies on certain things....

  9. Eventually...just two jobs... by bschorr · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. A guy
    2. A dog

    The guy is there to feed the dog. The dog is there to make sure the guy doesn't touch the servers.

    --
    -B-
  10. More jobs would make this a good deal by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's good for those 50 people, who I assume are going to be reduced to 10 or 15 over time as data center tasks get even more routine. You basically need security guards, 1 or 2 admins and a bunch of hardware guys to run around and replace disks, rack equipment, etc. And with vendors producing Open Compute-style pods-in-a-box that just have cables, water lines and ductwork coming out, this job gets even easier and more automated. Disks are so cheap now that they could probably just let them die and do a once-a-year purge of all the dead drives, meaning you wouldn't even have to have the full time guys for that job.

    Data centers are not a good investment for EDAs...the tax forgiveness and free electricity they're getting will never be offset by 50 jobs over the long term. Government officials think "cyber" when they hear about these projects and think they're master negotiators for bringing this big Silicon Valley titan into their jurisdiction. The details come out later...and Apple may not even decide to stick around.

    I think it's growing more and more obvious that full-time, lifelong employment is going away, but the need to keep the consumption cycle running isn't. You're not just going to replace the whole "money is the only store of value" thing overnight. Since no one will ever agree to a basic income until people are killing each other over food scraps, I propose blatant make-work projects. Seriously, if employers won't hire the vast majority of people, how can you run a society where most people can't participate in the economy, _and_ not make those who can feel that those who can't are "lazy drug using welfare queens" or similar?

  11. capitali$m doesn't add up by bigtreeman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Companies shouldn't get handouts from governments.
    It goes against all the rules of capitalism and the free market.
    If they can't make a go of it without corporate welfare they should shut shop.

    --
    Go well
    1. Re:capitali$m doesn't add up by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      A major corporation like Apple can build a data center almost anywhere. It's not a question of whether Apple can make a go of it without corporate welfare. The fact is, they can demand it and get it, so why wouldn't they?

      Apple is building one data center. Multiple states would love to have the resulting tax revenue. Limited demand and more customers leads to the customers bidding on the product. Sometimes the bidding gets carried away and the customer spends far more on the product than it's worth (which does seem to be the case here).

      That's not against your imaginary Rules of Capitalism (feel free to post a link to those official rules, btw... would love to see them). That is the reality of capitalism. When you argue for the free market, this sort of thing is exactly what you're arguing for.

    2. Re:capitali$m doesn't add up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can try Illinois' model: Tax the living hell out of the businesses, and then they leave.

  12. Richest company on the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And they still get government subsidies.

  13. UBI case by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    208 million to get 50 jobs is quite expensive. At that price we can give 50 huge universal basic income for more than a lifespan.

    I agree technological leadership is more than 50 jobs, but please stop telling us such tax breaks are for employment.

    1. Re:UBI case by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      These tax breaks are an admission that the State has a bad tax policy. Instead of fixing it, they do this.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  14. Breakdown by dbarclay10 · · Score: 2

    For anybody too lazy to do the math, that works out to $4.16 million per permanent job, or $208k per year per permanent job for 20 years.

    --

    Barclay family motto:
    Aut agere aut mori.
    (Either action or death.)
  15. Dear stupid person by doctorvo · · Score: 1

    Apple doesn't get a dime from the state. Zero. Zilch. Nor do Iowa tax payers lose or spend a dime on this deal. What the state promises is to temporarily not take as much money from Apple as they ordinarily would.

    Having said that, I think these special tax deals should be made illegal. They are utterly corrupt and unfair. Businesses in a state should be taxed uniformly, period. If Apple isn't willing to move to Iowa at Iowa's regular tax rates, then Iowa either needs to live with that, or it needs to lower taxes for all businesses uniformly.

    1. Re:Dear stupid person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple probably just got Iowa and Ireland mixed up. Honest mistake.

  16. Let's set a few things straight by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. They are being paid 4M per job
    No, this assumes that some other company would have built on that land and paid the full tax rate. This is vacant land which is taxed at a far lower level. It seems more likely that Iowa is simply applying the tax rate of what vacant land would cost instead of developed commercial property.

    2. Apple can pick up and leave after 10 years
    True, they can have another state build a new data center for them but why would they? The labor cost savings would be insignificant and if you have a perfectly good data center what is the point of mothballing it?

    I don't like the fact that rich companies like Apple get tax breaks but everybody wants to have high tech jobs. Tech companies are not going to move to sparsely populated states like Iowa without major incentives. Even if they leave later on they will leave behind a built up infrastructure that could be used to lure other companies to the region.

    1. Re:Let's set a few things straight by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      It's just like reading a science article where the journalist flubs it up. Press releases of this nature are intentionally vague and job creation being en vogue like it is is just a talking point, with the financial benefits being reported in laymans terms with a lot of info left out. There's a lot of follow-on costs that will be taxed in a way to bring revenue to the area. The end result jobs at the data center don't add much at the end of the day - the business sales and use tax, utility revenue, infastructure development, construction phase, et al add up to quite a bit. Not only that, these incentives are almost always tied into expected costs as percentage credits, so they often can't be taken unless they're paying something in the first place.

      Most city/state governments don't get fleeced in these agreements like some have in the past, the agreements are written up in a way to ensure the tax breaks don't trigger unless they do what they agreed to do.

  17. Re: Great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clean American Coal that will be cause of disease for the Americans nearby. But it will be an American disease.

    Cash, is that you?

  18. Just a thought. by hey! · · Score: 1

    What if the state gave local entrepreneurs 208 million in incentives to start businesses. Would that create more jobs/revenue than a data center?

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  19. $1.3 billion is huge! by hubtechinfo · · Score: 1

    Is it really required?? whoa! That is a huge amount! Give me $1.. billion and I will help eradicate hunger from many parts of India.