Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash

eetimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 303 posts

Re: TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash

#221

Post by asiachick »

Tostino wrote: post #201
wheels wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] we moved because it cost less with no labor or environmental protections and we could work the shit out of people. TSMC was never in North America, it was always a Taiwanese company. It's literally an Asian company moving production to the US. Taiwan isn't some rando poor Asian country; it's a rich democracy. The work culture is no doubt different (as it is, say, in Japan or South Korea), but to pretend that…

I didn't read that comment in relation to TSMC, but as a rebuttal to the GP's assertion that it was "people" who drove US production over seas over the past 40 years.

it was people who drove US production over seas. Consumers were always free to choose locally made products. They didn't, they chose cheap.

Re: TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash

#222

Post by acoard »

wheels wrote: post #198
phkahler wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It’s like: That's cute, but not what actually happened. It started with: Company: We want more profit Production: Moved to Asia Other Companies: We can't compete any more Other Production: Moved to Asia Companies: Oh crap, we need production back in the US (for various reasons) Production: Oh shit that's right, we moved because it cost less with no labor or environmental protections and we could work the shit out…

> [...] we moved because it cost less with no labor or environmental protections and we could work the shit out of people. TSMC was never in North America, it was always a Taiwanese company. It's literally an Asian company moving production to the US. Taiwan isn't some rando poor Asian country; it's a rich democracy. The work culture is no doubt different (as it is, say, in Japan or South Korea), but to pretend that…

As per the article:

> Americans workers at TSMC’s Arizona fab may chafe at becoming the humble students of their mentors in Taiwan, who nearly 50 years ago transferred semiconductor technology from RCA of the U.S.

It was more geostrategic rather than capitalist outsourcing that lead to the knowledge transfer, but after that transfer was complete, the economic factors mentioned by the person you're responding to would fully be in effect. A nontrivial part of Taiwan's economic success has been that knowledge transfer that enabled the creation of TSMC.

Re: TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash

#223

Post by throwaway9870 »

phkahler wrote: post #175
neonihil wrote: post #137

It’s like: People: We want stuff cheaply, immediately and in immense volume! Production: Moves to Asia People: We want jobs! Production: Opens a new factory in the USA People: We don’t want to work that much! Production: increases pay, which increases product cost People: this is too expensive. Can we buy from overseas cheaply instead? Production: Closes USA factory, moves back to Asia. People: we want jobs…

>> It’s like: That's cute, but not what actually happened. It started with: Company: We want more profit Production: Moved to Asia Other Companies: We can't compete any more Other Production: Moved to Asia Companies: Oh crap, we need production back in the US (for various reasons) Production: Oh shit that's right, we moved because it cost less with no labor or environmental protections and we could work the shit out…

People can't consume more than they produce, unless they are riding on the coat tails other workers. Right now, America is used to riding on the coat tails of Asian labour and that is eventually going to come to an end.

Re: TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash

#224

Post by PeterisP »

CivBase wrote: post #190
defterGoose wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very charitable view of capitalism-driven wealth concentration.

How so? The rich don't benefit from profits being tied up in a business account. If they want that money, they either have to receive it as immediate compensation or invest it in hopes of receiving even greater compensation in the future.

The generally accepted meaning of "compensation" is not related to distribution of profit. All compensation to employees and managers (including bonuses) is a "before-profit" expense; and all distribution of profits to company owners like dividends and stock buybacks is not called compensation, that's an entirely separate category.

Re: TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash

#225

Post by webmaven »

csours wrote: post #193
jason-phillips wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once you see a modern fab with your own eyes, it will change you in a deep way. Nothing you see in media can prepare you for the real thing. While working for Samsung Austin Semiconductor in 2013, I needed to travel to Korea for a month as part of our work on a global supply chain software project. IIRC, we were working at the semiconductor complex at Giehung. The fabs there are unbelievably enormous, much bigger t…

This all reminds me of the short story "They're Made out of Meat" https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...

I've read (and watched) that story at least a dozen times, and your comment still seemed like a non sequitur.

Then I got it. Brilliant.

Re: TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash

#226

Post by PeterisP »

fitchjo wrote: post #204
CivBase wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investments and bonuses are not part of any of those categories. Profits don't just get dumped into a Scrooge McDuck-esque money pool. Businesses obviously keep some money on hand, but it doesn't benefit anyone involved to have the money sit there forever. Profits are eventually used to fund expansions, acquisitions, improvements, charitable donations, rewards, etc.

Or, most cynically, returned to owners in the form of dividends/distributions or stock buybacks

There's nothing cynical about that, for most companies in the world their entire purpose and primary reason for existence - explicitly and openly stated, and mandated by their bylaws - is to generate this return on investment for the owners.

Like, this is the primary goal; any other uses of profit are valid only with the expectation that they will allow the owners to extract more money later.

Re: TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash

#227

Post by AnthonyMouse »

wheels wrote: post #198
phkahler wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It’s like: That's cute, but not what actually happened. It started with: Company: We want more profit Production: Moved to Asia Other Companies: We can't compete any more Other Production: Moved to Asia Companies: Oh crap, we need production back in the US (for various reasons) Production: Oh shit that's right, we moved because it cost less with no labor or environmental protections and we could work the shit out…

> [...] we moved because it cost less with no labor or environmental protections and we could work the shit out of people. TSMC was never in North America, it was always a Taiwanese company. It's literally an Asian company moving production to the US. Taiwan isn't some rando poor Asian country; it's a rich democracy. The work culture is no doubt different (as it is, say, in Japan or South Korea), but to pretend that…

> TSMC was never in North America, it was always a Taiwanese company.

This isn't about a particular company, it's an industry-wide trend. Semiconductor manufacturing was predominantly in the US, then it wasn't.

> The work culture is no doubt different (as it is, say, in Japan or South Korea), but to pretend that it has no labor or environmental laws is somewhere between racist and naive.

This is actually the root of the problem. The problem isn't the existence of labor or environmental laws, it's that many labor and environmental laws exist in the US that can't survive a cost benefit analysis, so the US loses manufacturing to countries with a more efficient regulatory environment.

People act like regulation is some binary thing where the only choices are "on" or "off" when the reality is that the details are what matter.

Re: TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash

#228

Post by contidrift »

CivBase wrote: post #186
contidrift wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought profits meant "the amount of income that remains after accounting for all expenses, debts, additional income streams, and operating costs."

Investments and bonuses are not part of any of those categories. Profits don't just get dumped into a Scrooge McDuck-esque money pool. Businesses obviously keep some money on hand, but it doesn't benefit anyone involved to have the money sit there forever. Profits are eventually used to fund expansions, acquisitions, improvements, charitable donations, rewards, etc.

It was my layman's understanding that R&D or building a new factory would count as "business expense" so thanks for clarifying that.

Re: TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash

#229

Post by s1artibartfast »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #211
_RPL5_ wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression was that the extra hours are due to the factories being on a 24/7 uninterrupted production cycle. Having people work 12 hour shifts instead of 8 reduces the headcount required by 33%.

Only if you can get away with not paying people at least 33% more.

Not true, you can pay 33% or more and still save money on overhead, head count, and shift changes. You see this in the US despite overtime laws, where it is still better to pay a worker 150% for the extra hours.

Re: TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash

#230

Post by downrightmike »

neonihil wrote: post #137

It’s like: People: We want stuff cheaply, immediately and in immense volume! Production: Moves to Asia People: We want jobs! Production: Opens a new factory in the USA People: We don’t want to work that much! Production: increases pay, which increases product cost People: this is too expensive. Can we buy from overseas cheaply instead? Production: Closes USA factory, moves back to Asia. People: we want jobs…

Hire more people have several shifts. Increasing pay when you're maxing people out already.
Post reply on HN