Live data from Hacker News

America’s semiconductor boom [video]

youtube.com

121–130 of 142 posts

Re: America’s semiconductor boom [video]

#121

I found an interesting thread on the /r/semiconductors subreddit discussing what it is like to work at TSMC https://reddit.com/r/Semiconductors/comments/1m96m4f/my_expe...

Reading that post, all i felt what a splendid luxury it is to live in the united states and be paid much better than those in other nations because of the country’s brand.

... while having a 38th-in-the-world healthcare system that can completely bankrupt you, and an obscenely puny PTO allotment.

Tradeoffs.

Re: America’s semiconductor boom [video]

#122
post #90
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can say that. They are neither for or against, they make (or try to make) predictions what happens in either case. Who benefits and who loses is not the same in those cases, it's not linear. If you wan to be "for" or "against" you have to take a side. Doesn't mean they don't have opinions too, but two economists that each favor different outcomes may still agree on the methods of their field.

Net benefits are positive from open migration. Not just net benefits when you include the foreigners, but also just netted over natives.

Except for the guys receiving the lowered salaries. And all the other problems of migration, when some destinations are WAAYYYY more desirable to live in, even jobless, than others.

You guys are very selective, either not even bothering with links, or carefully selecting that one particular piece of paper supporting your PoV. Which of course looked at only very few if not even just a single variable, and (by necessity) failed to account for the breadth of reality.

Quoting single papers is always a sign of desperation. That's not how anything works, when given a broad question. Studies are extremely specific! In comparison, the question here is as broad as it can possibly get for an economics question.

Discussions such as here are only worthwhile when the parties don't care about "winning" and use debate club methods.

Re: America’s semiconductor boom [video]

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America is rich as fuck dog Literally this. Median household income in America is US$8,000 per month. Half of Americans make MORE than that.

No, half of American households make more than that, and a typical household has 2.5 people.

> No, half of American households make more than that, and a typical household has 2.5 people.

And 2.5 Americans per household will say “they make more than that”

Kids say “my dad is rich” and wives say “we make $70k/month”

Re: America’s semiconductor boom [video]

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe chaos monkeys help innovation

Chaos monkey yes...but more like desperation for survival. Its the same mentality that drives Israel. As been shown a few times, it mutates into a sick culture with unintended consequences...but obviously it does produce results.

You as a Chinese bot, is obviously very familiar with sick cultures coming from one.

Re: America’s semiconductor boom [video]

#125
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software. Talk to anybody in the hardware space, and compare their experience to software. Hell, the only two people I see in this thread that claim hardware experience are saying that it's a better career move to switch to software. Software is easier, pays better, and has far better employers. Until hardware companies realize the situation they've created, they will lose their workforce to greener pastures.

Software has also benefitted from a massive tax subsidy relative to hardware, as the latter requires a massive capital investment. Hardware requires expensive real estate, and benefits from saving the spending, whereas software can exist on debt and small footprints.

That may have been the case prior to section 174, when you could invest massively in something, write it off as a loss, and then pivot to reusing it profitably, but now I think that all R&D efforts are equally discouraged.

Re: America’s semiconductor boom [video]

#126
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn’t the feds just get 10% of the company?

The way that worked is that part of the CHIPs act after Intel reached a milestone the USG handed them a bag of cash. Intel failed at finishing a bunch of milestones so there was a large pot of money Intel did not get. Trump gave them that pot of money in return for 10% stock. You can make up your own mind about whether investing money into a company that couldn't achieve milestones is a good idea.

I guess they could make the argument that holding 10% of the only company with an x86 license that manufacturers them at scale in the US was worth it.

If you consider it a hedge against missiles flying in the indo-pacific.

I don't know that I would but the US gov could - it's similar in terms of strategic goals as the Jones Act.

Re: America’s semiconductor boom [video]

#127
post #7

Is America's semiconductor boom real? How much capacity are we building? What processes? What types of semiconductor products? High end? Middle? Low? How much capacity? Can we substitute or replace Taiwan in the future in the event of conflict? I can't watch the video right now, but I'm curious about its claims. Or any additional HNer context.

This video has lots of details, but conspicuously absent is exactly WHAT chips are being made in Arizona. I guess it's still a closely-guarded secret for some reason.

I think it's N5/N3 or so, current state of the art.

Re: America’s semiconductor boom [video]

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is rich as fuck dog.

> America is rich as fuck dog Literally this. Median household income in America is US$8,000 per month. Half of Americans make MORE than that.

Americans also have record levels of debit so a lot of that money is going to pay off credit cards and payday loans.

Re: America’s semiconductor boom [video]

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way that worked is that part of the CHIPs act after Intel reached a milestone the USG handed them a bag of cash. Intel failed at finishing a bunch of milestones so there was a large pot of money Intel did not get. Trump gave them that pot of money in return for 10% stock. You can make up your own mind about whether investing money into a company that couldn't achieve milestones is a good idea.

I guess they could make the argument that holding 10% of the only company with an x86 license that manufacturers them at scale in the US was worth it. If you consider it a hedge against missiles flying in the indo-pacific. I don't know that I would but the US gov could - it's similar in terms of strategic goals as the Jones Act.

I mean the Jones act was pretty practical for it's time. When you could obtain a ship via a cheap lease from the US Navy then the lack of capital spend building the ship is fine to spend employing US sailors.

However, now that the navy is out of the business of buying overpriced ships to rent out (with the idea that they'd be repurposed if a war broke out) now the Jones act isn't very effective.

However, unlike the Jones Act there's no criteria that Intel be able to supply chips. At least with the Jones Act we're going to have US citizens practiced sailing ships. With the stock purchase Intel doesn't need to have capacity to build chips for missiles/drones/etc; especially with the government treating them as non-voting shares!

If the USG wanted a hedge they should've just forked some money over for an option to buy X chips for $Y. Or some more complex option about fab time / output. You hedge production concerns with futures not equity!

It's also not great to hedge by using a vendor that wasn't able to meet previous goals you gave them. Counterparty risk is a real thing.

Re: America’s semiconductor boom [video]

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The talent is already here, the employers just need to pay better.

And attract them away from what? What are these skilled people doing? Does a photolithography skill set enable you to moonlight at some other gig such that they're here and keeping their skills fresh and we're just not noticing?

A lot of highly skilled people are perfectly happy to stay at their job earing 60% of what they "could" be making because they have other priorities that don't involve increasing shareholder value.
Post reply on HN