How Nashville transformed from Music City into a booming business hub
It's now become one of the fastest-growing U.S. cities, boasting a diverse community and a competitive economy.
"It's not just economics. It's our climate here," said John Eldridge, founder and CEO of development company E3 Construction Services. "It's our culture here. It's our location."
Some of the biggest names in tech like Amazon and Oracle have invested in the region, too, fueling a rapid tech expansion. Oracle has developed a $1.4 billion Nashville campus for its global headquarters, and Amazon has leased over 1 million square feet of office space in downtown — on top of opening a $230 million East Coast operations hub in 2018.
According to a joint report by the Great Nashville Technology Council and Middle Tennessee State University, the number of tech jobs in the Nashville area grew by 17% between 2017 and 2022.
"We found that we could locate here, we found that we could find the talent here," said Amazon's Vice President of Worldwide Economic Development Holly Sullivan adding that both the state of Tennessee and the city of Nashville had very business-friendly policies. "When you find that, you want to double down on that."
Many other corporate giants have been recruited to the area thanks to the city's 10-year strategy that gets upgraded every decade. Under the plan, more than 600,000 jobs have been created since 1990 and per-capita income in the region has grown by more than 234%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Commercial and residential real estate have boomed, though the city has struggled to keep up with enough affordable housing. Nashville ranked among cities with the biggest increase in home prices between 2014 and 2024, according to Construction Coverage.
Watch this video to learn more about Nashville's rise.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stablecoins Are on the Rise. 3 Reasons Investors Should Pay Attention to This Popular Cryptocurrency.
Key Points New crypto legislation in Congress has paved the way for rapid expansion of the stablecoin industry. In addition to financial services firms, companies in industries ranging from retail to tech could launch new stablecoins. Stablecoins have the potential to disrupt existing industries and change the way investors value companies. 10 stocks we like better than Circle Internet Group › Passage of landmark new crypto legislation (the Genius Act) has led to a surge of positive sentiment about stablecoins. Some investors now think they have the potential to disrupt entire industries. Although some of this hype and buzz may be overblown, investors still need to pay attention. Here are three key ways that stablecoins could influence your investment strategy. 1. Impact on the business models of top companies Stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies pegged 1:1 to a fiat currency such as the U.S. dollar, have the potential to affect the business models of companies that have nothing to do with crypto or blockchain. Take retail, for example. A handful of top retailers -- including Amazon and Walmart -- are now exploring stablecoins as a way of cutting down on credit card processing fees. At some point in the not-so-distant future, you might be paying for your online purchases with stablecoins, rather than credit cards. Or what about the financial services industry? Visa is a prime candidate for disruption, so it is already taking steps to prepare for the stablecoin era. And Western Union is also preparing for the day when customers use stablecoins rather than dollars to send cross-border remittances. So get ready to hear a lot about stablecoins on analyst calls and at investor conferences. After asking questions about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI), investors and analysts might start to ask about the impact of stablecoins. At the very least, investors need to understand how stablecoins might change or disrupt existing business models. 2. New stablecoin launches Also, get ready for a deluge of new stablecoin launches from some unlikely names. And it won't just be banks or financial institutions issuing them. Under the Genius Act, even nonbanks will be able to issue them. And that could really open the floodgates. Right now, Tether (CRYPTO: USDT) and USDC (CRYPTO: USDC), the stablecoin issued by Circle Internet Group (NYSE: CRCL), account for a whopping 90% of the $250 billion stablecoin industry. According to the latest Motley Fool stablecoin research, Tether and Circle are smaller than the biggest national banks, but larger than typical midsized brokerages. So, they're definitely, a force to be reckoned with. Right now, I'm partial to USDC, because it's the unofficial stablecoin of Coinbase Global (NASDAQ: COIN), which has a partnership agreement with Circle. I also am confident that it will never lose its peg to the U.S. dollar. I wouldn't have as much confidence in smaller stablecoins without such a proven track record or as many key partners. It's easy to see how this industry will become a lot more fragmented very soon, making it potentially even more confusing for the average investor. In June, Fortune reported that Apple, Airbnb, X, and Alphabet were exploring stablecoin launches. So, if you're an Apple fan, you might want to own an Apple stablecoin. The same is true if you're an Elon Musk fan -- wouldn't you want to own a cool new X stablecoin? 3. Ethereum Finally, there's the matter of which blockchain will emerge as the dominant platform for stablecoins. Presumably, investors will flock to blockchains that are seeing the most success with stablecoins. That's because stablecoins are key building blocks for everything that happens in blockchain finance. So the most popular blockchains for stablecoins should also get the highest valuations. Currently, Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) is getting a lot of buzz because it accounts for 49% of the stablecoin market. According to investment strategist Tom Lee of Fundstrat, stablecoins are going to create a "ChatGPT moment" for Ethereum, with the potential to really light a fire under its price. With that in mind, it's easy to see why high-profile investors such as Peter Thiel are now starting to increase their exposure to Ethereum as a way of investing in stablecoins. But Ethereum hardly has a monopoly on stablecoins. All Layer-1 blockchains, if they can support smart contracts, should also be able to support stablecoins. And that creates the opportunity for relatively unknown names to really pop. According to CoinGecko, Tron (CRYPTO: TRX) has a 34.1% share of the stablecoin market. By way of comparison, Solana (CRYPTO: SOL) only has a measly 2.2% share. If you think that stablecoins are the future, then Solana (with a $100 billion valuation), might be way overvalued compared to Tron, which has a $30 billion valuation. What's the best way to play the stablecoin trend? It's obvious that there are a number of different ways to play the stablecoin trend. The easiest way is to invest in the issuers of stablecoins, such as Circle. That gives you maximum exposure to any potential upside. You could also invest in blockchains such as Ethereum that are dominant in stablecoins, with the expectation that their values are going to soar. By the end of 2025, investing in stablecoins could get very interesting. What if a popular company like Amazon, Apple, or Alphabet decides to launch a stablecoin? It might fundamentally alter the way investors view these companies. That's why, even if you've never paid attention to stablecoins before, you should now. Very soon, they're going to become impossible to ignore. Should you invest $1,000 in Circle Internet Group right now? Before you buy stock in Circle Internet Group, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Circle Internet Group wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $636,774!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,064,942!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,040% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Dominic Basulto has positions in Amazon, Circle Internet Group, Ethereum, Solana, and USDC. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Airbnb, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Ethereum, Solana, Visa, and Walmart. The Motley Fool recommends Coinbase Global. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Stablecoins Are on the Rise. 3 Reasons Investors Should Pay Attention to This Popular Cryptocurrency. was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Here are 3 ways to think about Nvidia stock
Fortunes have been made by many, thanks to investing in chip giant Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA). Nvidia stock has soared 1,576% over the past five years. It is now the most valuable listed company in the world. I continue to weigh my options when it comes to investing. I would be happy to own Nvidia stock in my portfolio — but I am not willing to pay the current price. In making my decisions, I have been trying to think about the share from different perspectives. Here are three of them. Like Amazon before the dotcom crash Artificial intelligence (AI) has some signs of being a stock market bubble. If that bubble bursts, for example because computing power progress means future chip demand is much less than expected, it would likely have a big impact on Nvidia. That helps explain why I am nervous about buying at the current Nvidia stock price. If it falls down I would then be nursing a paper loss, perhaps a sizeable one. Then again, Amazon fell 94% between the dotcom boom of November 1999 and September 2001. Still, since then it has gone up 76,600%. As a long-term investor, I do not mind sitting on a paper loss (even a sizeable one) if I continue to believe in the long-term investment case for a share. But while Amazon in 1999 could be an interesting comparison for Nvidia stock today, there is no guarantee latter would bounce back the way the former did. Amazon's market grew significantly. The market for AI chips may keep growing fast – but it could also be that after initial installations are complete, demand falls. A bubble waiting to burst? That leads me onto another potential way to view Nvidia stock: as a massive bubble waiting to burst. After all, the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio is 56. That is higher than I would be willing to pay, though large tech stocks often do command high P/E ratios. But earnings have exploded at Nvidia in recent years. Last year's basic earnings per share of $2.97 were far more than double the prior year's $1.21 – and around 25 times higher than just five years previously. If the surging demand for AI chips turns out to be a blip rather than a long-term trend, Nvidia's eanings could come crashing back to earth. In such a scenario, even if Nvidia remained solidly profitable, its stock price may move far below where it currently stands. This is the risk that most puts me off investing at the current share price. Success story set to grow A third scenario could be that Nvidia might be like Microsoft or Apple at multiple points in their history – massively successful yet set to grow further, boosting an already costly-looking share price. Apple stock is up 131% in the past five years. But five years ago, Apple was already massively successful and one of the biggest companies on the market. Nvidia's proprietary technology, large customer base and proven business model have brought it a long way in a few years. Maybe it can do the same again over the next few years. The post Here are 3 ways to think about Nvidia stock appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool C Ruane has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Tech companies building massive AI data centers should pay to power them
The projected growth in artificial intelligence and its unprecedented demand for electricity to power enormous data centers present a serious challenge to the financial and technical capacity of the U.S. utility system. Appreciation for the sheer magnitude of that challenge has gotten lost as forecast after forecast projects massive growth in electric demand over the coming decade. The idea of building a data center that will draw 1 gigawatt of power or more, an amount sufficient to serve over 875,000 homes, is in the plans of so many data center developers and so routinely discussed that it no longer seems extraordinary. The challenge, when viewed in the aggregate, may be overwhelming. A recent Wood Mackenzie report identified 64 gigawatts of confirmed data center related power projects currently on the books with another 132 gigawatts potentially to be developed. 64 gigawatts are enough to power 56 million homes — more than twice the population of the 15 largest cities in America. The U.S. electric utility system is struggling to meet the projected energy needs of the AI industry. The problem is that many utilities do not have the financial and organizational resources to build new generating and transmission facilities at the scale and on the data center developers' desired timeline. The public policy question now on the table is who should pay for and bear the risk for these massive mega-energy projects. Will it be the AI developers such as Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and Alphabet — whose combined market value is seven times that of the entire S&P 500 Utility Sector — or the residential and other customers of local electric utilities? The process to answer this and related questions is underway in the hallways of the U.S. Congress, at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other federal agencies, in tariff proceedings before state regulatory authorities and in public debate at the national, state and local levels. Whether they are developed at the federal, state or local level, the following values and objectives should form the core of public policy in this area: Data centers developers that require massive amounts of electric power (e.g. above 500MW or another specified level) should be required to pay for building new generating and transmission facilities. The State of Texas recently enacted legislation that requires data centers and other new large users to fund the infrastructure necessary to serve their needs. Although it is customary to spread the cost of new facilities across the user base of a utility, the demands that data center developers are placing on utility systems across the country are sufficiently extraordinary to justify allocating the costs of new facilities to those developers. Moreover, data center developers have the financial resources to cover those costs and incorporate them into the rates charged to users of their AI services. The developers of large data centers should bear the risk associated with new utility-built generating and transmission facilities, not the utility. As an example of such a policy, the Public Utility Commission of Ohio just approved a compromise proposed by American Electric Power of Ohio that would require data centers with loads greater than 1 gigawatt and mobile data centers over 25 megawatts to commit to 10-year electric service contracts and pay minimum demand charges based on 85 percent of their contract capacity, up from 60 percent under the utility's current general service tariff. Another option included in the Texas legislation requires significant up-front payments early in the planning process and mandates that data center developers disclose where they may have simultaneously placed demands for power. It is not unusual for data center requests for service to be withdrawn once they decide on the best location and package of incentives. Data center developers have the financial capacity and ability to manage this risk, utilities do not. Generating facilities that are co-located at large data centers should be integrated with the local utility electric grid, with appropriate cost allocation. Although a few projects have examined the option of a co-located power generation 'island' fully independent of the grid, most projects intend to interconnect with the grid system for back-up power and related purposes. Properly managed, this interconnection could be advantageous for both the data center and the utility system, provided that costs are appropriately allocated across the system. The U.S. government should continue to support the development of nuclear technology, including small modular reactors. U.S. utilities do not have the financial resources to assume the risk of building new nuclear-powered generating facilities. The emergence of a new set of customers, data center developers with enormous needs for electric power and deep pockets, changes the equation. The U.S. government has provided billions of dollars of support for new nuclear technologies and should continue to do so for the purpose of bringing their costs down. The U.S. government should continue to support energy efficiency improvements at data centers. Data centers use massive amounts of power for running servers, cooling systems, storage systems, networking equipment, backup systems, security systems and lighting. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has developed a 'handbook' of measures that data centers can implement to reduce energy usage and achieve savings. In addition, there now are strong market forces to develop new super-efficient chips that will lower the unit costs of training and using AI models. The U.S. government should help accelerate the development of these chips given their leverage on U.S. electricity demand. The stakes in this public policy debate over our energy future could not be higher. If we get these policies right, AI has the potential to remake the U.S. economy and the energy infrastructure of this country. If we get it wrong, the push to build new generating and transmission facilities to provide gigawatts of power has the potential to overwhelm the financial and operational capacity our electric utility system, impose burdensome rate increases on homeowners and businesses, undercut efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels to meet climate-related goals and compromise the reliability of our electricity grid for years to come. David M. Klaus is a consultant on energy issues who served as deputy undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Energy during the Obama administration and as a political appointee to two other Democratic presidents. Mark MacCarthy is the author of 'Regulating Digital Industries' (Brookings, 2023), an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Communication, Culture & Technology Program, a nonresident senior fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown Law and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
