Nevada is becoming a testing ground for one of the biggest economic questions surrounding artificial intelligence: can the technology create prosperity while threatening the jobs that sustain local communities?
In northern Nevada, vast data center developments are generating thousands of hours of work for electricians, pipefitters and other construction workers. Yet hundreds of miles away in Las Vegas, AI-powered services and automation are putting pressure on jobs in hospitality, transportation and customer service.
The divide is creating a difficult choice for labor unions and politicians ahead of Nevada’s November 3 elections. While data center construction is bringing investment and better-paying jobs to parts of the state, workers in the tourism and casino industries fear that the same technological expansion could gradually eliminate their livelihoods.
The challenge is no longer simply whether Nevada should embrace AI. It is how the state can benefit from technological investment without leaving its existing workforce behind.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Nevada’s labor unions face competing priorities
The Nevada Teamsters, a politically influential network representing approximately 30,000 workers across construction, transportation and hospitality, are confronting these competing interests directly.
Some members benefit from the construction boom and want development to continue. Others are concerned that AI systems and automated vehicles could undermine employment in industries that have supported generations of Nevada families.
The union has interviewed more than 180 political candidates from both parties as it considers its position ahead of the elections. Its political director, Ross Kinson, has emphasized the need to protect workers without dismissing the economic opportunities associated with data centers.
The union’s position reflects a broader debate across the United States over whether governments should restrict AI development, impose stronger worker protections or allow businesses to adopt new technologies with fewer constraints.
For politicians, the issue is particularly complicated because the workers benefiting from AI infrastructure construction are not necessarily the same workers facing displacement from AI applications.
Nevada will also carry political significance beyond the November elections. Its role near the beginning of the Democratic presidential primary calendar ahead of the 2028 presidential election could make the state’s experience relevant to the wider national debate over technology, employment and economic security.
Las Vegas hospitality workers fear an automated future
For many workers in Las Vegas, automation is no longer a distant possibility. It is already changing the services that define the city’s tourism economy.
Autonomous vehicles operated by Waymo and Zoox are competing with human-driven transportation services, while robot bartenders and digital hotel check-in systems are becoming more common. Casino call centers are also introducing AI-powered platforms that can handle customer interactions without the same level of human involvement.
MGM Resorts reportedly laid off around 200 call-center workers in the previous year, according to Kinson. On an investor call, the company’s chief financial officer, Jonathan Halkyard, said approximately 80% of guest interactions now take place through AI or digital platforms.
The potential scale of the disruption is significant. An analysis by RCG Economics estimated that AI and automation could put as many as 92,000 Southern Nevada hospitality jobs at risk by 2035, equivalent to roughly one-third of the sector’s workforce.
For experienced hospitality workers, the concern extends beyond immediate layoffs. Many have spent decades building careers in an industry that depends on personal service, human interaction and familiarity with customers.
Larry Goldfinger, a longtime Las Vegas valet and Teamsters member, worries that younger workers may struggle to build stable lives if traditional hospitality jobs become less available. He also argues that excessive automation could weaken the personal service that attracts tourists to the city.
The concern is not necessarily opposition to technological progress. Rather, workers want a say in how companies introduce automation, what happens to employees whose jobs disappear and whether new opportunities will be available to those affected.
That distinction matters. A transition that includes retraining, advance notice, severance arrangements and alternative employment may produce different social outcomes from one driven primarily by rapid cost-cutting.
Northern Nevada’s data center boom creates new opportunities
The picture is markedly different in northern Nevada, where data center construction is providing employment and supporting a more diversified regional economy.
At the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center in Storey County, major developments involving companies including Google, Switch and Tract are expanding the region’s role in the digital economy.
For workers who have struggled to find stable employment, the projects offer an opportunity to earn higher wages and work longer hours.
Christopher Williams, a 20-year-old who moved from northern California to Reno, previously struggled to secure enough hours as a line cook earning $18.50 an hour. His new data center job pays more than $22 an hour, with a working week that can reach 45 to 60 hours.
His experience illustrates why some workers resist calls to halt development. Even those who have concerns about the wider consequences of data centers may depend on the immediate income and opportunities they provide.
Local officials also see the industry as a way to reduce Nevada’s dependence on gaming and tourism. County Commissioner Clay Mitchell has argued that data centers are making the regional economy more stable while creating opportunities for younger residents to remain in the area.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers reported that the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center generated approximately 850,000 work hours per month in 2026, compared with a similar volume across the whole of 2022. The comparison highlights the scale of the construction expansion.
However, the benefits of construction should not automatically be confused with permanent employment. Building data centers requires substantial labor, but operating them may require a different and potentially smaller workforce. The long-term employment effects will depend on the types of jobs created, the skills they demand and whether workers can move into other positions as construction activity changes.
The political battle over AI regulation
These competing experiences are shaping Nevada’s gubernatorial contest between Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford and Republican incumbent Joe Lombardo.
Ford has proposed ending new data center tax abatements, requiring developers to protect residents from rising energy costs and introducing stronger regulations to protect jobs from AI-driven disruption. His platform seeks to preserve the economic benefits of investment while imposing greater obligations on developers and employers.
Lombardo, meanwhile, has promoted data centers as a major economic opportunity, describing the industry as a new gold rush. In September, however, he introduced new restrictions on some of the tax incentives that helped attract data center investment to Nevada.
The disagreement illustrates a wider policy challenge: how to attract private investment without allowing its costs to fall disproportionately on workers, households and local communities.
Data centers require significant electricity and infrastructure. If expansion increases pressure on power supplies or raises costs for residents, public support may weaken even where the projects generate employment. At the same time, abruptly restricting construction could undermine investment and reduce opportunities for workers in the building trades.
For the Teamsters, a political position that protects one group of members at the expense of another would be difficult to sustain. The union is therefore seeking a balance between continued development and stronger safeguards for workers.
Its influence could matter at the ballot box. Union members represented about 13% of Nevada’s wage and salary workforce in 2025, compared with approximately 10% nationwide, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A national debate over growth and displacement
Nevada’s dilemma is part of a broader American debate over the economic consequences of AI infrastructure.
In Kansas, Republican gubernatorial candidate Ty Masterson received endorsements from major labor organizations after his Democratic opponent, Cindy Holscher, called for a moratorium on data center development. The decision demonstrated how concerns about jobs and investment can reshape traditional political alliances.
Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, has argued that banning new data centers would sacrifice a major opportunity to rebuild the country’s industrial capacity. His position reflects the construction industry’s interest in projects that create substantial demand for skilled labor.
Yet the interests of construction workers do not necessarily align with those of workers whose jobs may be automated. This makes AI policy more complicated than a conventional dispute between labor and business. The same technological ecosystem can generate employment in one sector while reducing it in another.
Governments must therefore look beyond the number of projects announced or the volume of investment attracted. They also need to consider the durability of jobs, the distribution of economic gains, the affordability of electricity and the support available to workers who lose employment.
Can Nevada find a middle ground?
Nevada’s experience suggests that neither unrestricted automation nor a blanket halt on data center construction offers an easy solution.
Policymakers could focus on stronger advance-notice requirements, retraining programmes, transition assistance and enforceable protections for employees affected by AI adoption. They could also assess whether data center incentives deliver lasting economic benefits and whether developers are contributing fairly to the infrastructure their projects require.
For employers, involving workers early in automation decisions could help reduce resistance and identify opportunities to use AI to support employees rather than simply replace them. For unions, the challenge is to negotiate protections that cover both workers building AI infrastructure and those whose jobs may be transformed by it.
The central question is whether the economic gains from AI can be distributed widely enough to offset the disruption it creates. Higher productivity and new investment do not automatically translate into greater security for every worker.
As Nevada approaches its November elections, its unions and political leaders are confronting a problem that will become increasingly important across the United States. The success of the AI economy will depend not only on how quickly the technology advances, but also on whether workers can share in its benefits without bearing the costs of its expansion alone.
With information from Reuters.
