Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas • Hacker News Board

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#31

Post by ethbr0 » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

kesselvon wrote: post #19

CoastalCoder wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If China were to invade Taiwan, I'm guessing that all product flow from China/Taiwan to (most) other countries would stop. If that happened, I'm curious what other manufacturing/product issues would impact other countries, and how long it would take them to adapt. E.g., what tool manufacturing, raw materials mining, etc. are currently happening only in China and/or Taiwan? And that's assuming that China didn't also s…

The U.S. supply chains would be completely wrecked. We're probably close to a point where in the event of a global war with China, we wouldn't be able to mobilize industry in the same way we did during WW2 simply because the industrial output fo yesteryear no longer exists in the U.S.

On the other hand, people forget the amount of IP (including semi design) that goes from the world to China/Taiwan to design products.

But that's what the whole point of free trade is supposed to be: increased interdependence, so that everyone has a gun to everyone else's head, and no one is incentivized to pull the trigger.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#32

Post by elzbardico » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

burnished wrote: post #13

Ok, this article quietly gets fucking wild halfway through. >> Samsung spent years evaluating where to build the new fab, courting multiple locations and pitting them against each other for better incentives. But the ultimate decision came down to Samsung Group's leader Jay Y. Lee, who was granted early parole in August expressly to speed up crucial business decisions like the Texas chip fab. Accounting for between 1…

When I was a kid I was bullied by the kids calling me crazy, because of my overly imaginative approach to reality. Fast forward a lot of years later i look at reality and find out that the bullies had no clue at all. The real world is far more bizarre than any of the imaginary worlds I created in my mind during childhood

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#33

Post by vadansky » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

burnished wrote: post #13

Ok, this article quietly gets fucking wild halfway through. >> Samsung spent years evaluating where to build the new fab, courting multiple locations and pitting them against each other for better incentives. But the ultimate decision came down to Samsung Group's leader Jay Y. Lee, who was granted early parole in August expressly to speed up crucial business decisions like the Texas chip fab. Accounting for between 1…

I keep hearing about Park Geun-hye and all the crazy allegations, but it's always snippets like these or a reddit post, is there a good comprehensive resource that covers everything? Or should I wait for the eventual book to come out?

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#34

Post by kjuulh » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

burnished wrote: post #13

Ok, this article quietly gets fucking wild halfway through. >> Samsung spent years evaluating where to build the new fab, courting multiple locations and pitting them against each other for better incentives. But the ultimate decision came down to Samsung Group's leader Jay Y. Lee, who was granted early parole in August expressly to speed up crucial business decisions like the Texas chip fab. Accounting for between 1…

If you want to read something wild: Rooftop sword master. It is a wild fictional comic based in south korea. I believe it may be a bit of a commentary to what you've written.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#35

Post by oneplane » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 3:58 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #12

bnt wrote: post #2

So everyone is on the "Let's build a Fab in the USA" train, will that eventually bring down the chip production costs? (not an expert in the field, so asking naively)

Globalization led to an erosion of US wages and the hollowing out of our middle class. If we buy local, it creates domestic jobs. Wages go up too. We need to onshore more .

That's so many assumptions you might as well put on a robe and special hat and become a fortune teller.

The effective erosion itself is a policy choice, there is this thing called 'minimum wage' which you can use to make sure that there is more than just 'warm bodies' as the lowest common denominator in job requirements, and as a result everything above that has to be 'upgraded' to a higher standard as well, otherwise people aren't willing to do the work (just like is happening now). The examples are all around you.

There is no onshoring of talent or natural resources since they are not 'constructed' the same way and importing those are against the current ideas/fears of immigration and relying on third parties for goods.

In other words: globalisation isn't a choice, it's a side-effect from the needs of humanity. Reverting to a more primitive state that decreases those needs could be a path, but I doubt anyone would choose that willingly.

Besides those things, there is this concept of ideals or principles which are almost as important and it doesn't require any extreme form of meddling either. If people really care about something (say, the well-being of other humans and therefore not really being happy with an authoritarian regime somewhere) then that can be incentive enough. And if it isn't then some protectionism won't be enough either.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#36

Post by csours » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

JavaBatman wrote: post #11

I am still amazed by the shortsightedness of how these critical and strategic goods are off-shore. No wonder why the supply chains are fragile and not robust. It should be illegal for strategic goods and components such as chips and semiconductors to be produced offshore. Yes, it will raise prices in the short and medium-term, but it will make the domestic economy and manufacturing sector more robust, resilient to su…

How does making something illegal counteract economic forces? Hint: Look at Soviet Bloc economics. They imported high tech goods even after spending loads of money on trying to build them internally.

I would agree that onshoring more of the supply chain makes a lot of sense, but I think it must be an economically viable solution. I don't know exactly how to do that, but things like having a guaranteed market (like we do for food) might be part of the solution.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#37

Post by oneplane » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

kesselvon wrote: post #22

colinmhayes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protectionism makes everyone worse off.

Hollowing out the industrial base leaves us even worse off.

It only leaves lower tiered hierarchies worse off and only in the short term. Extracting value that way is never a long-term plan since the needs will either be fulfilled or the extraction will be complete and no more value can be created.

If people don't want to buy a product because it is inferior in some way, the solution isn't to ban superior products but to upgrade those inferior products to be superior again. And inferiority/superiority doesn't just mean quality, it can also mean features and the price-quality balance in itself. At the same time, the rest of the world doesn't "go away" if you construct an island within your borders that nobody is allowed to join, so at best it's going to end up in some sort of useless industrial-cold-war.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#38

Post by sixothree » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

burnished wrote: post #13

Ok, this article quietly gets fucking wild halfway through. >> Samsung spent years evaluating where to build the new fab, courting multiple locations and pitting them against each other for better incentives. But the ultimate decision came down to Samsung Group's leader Jay Y. Lee, who was granted early parole in August expressly to speed up crucial business decisions like the Texas chip fab. Accounting for between 1…

> with executives pardoned for crimes in the name of ensuring national economic growth.

Is that really so different from how things work here?

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#39

Post by justapassenger » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #16

echelon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Globalization led to an erosion of US wages and the hollowing out of our middle class. If we buy local, it creates domestic jobs. Wages go up too. We need to onshore more .

Protectionism makes everyone worse off.

There’s huge difference between protectionism and investing locally.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#40

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

lkbm wrote: post #8

bnt wrote: post #2

So everyone is on the "Let's build a Fab in the USA" train, will that eventually bring down the chip production costs? (not an expert in the field, so asking naively)

(Also not an expert.) In general I wouldn't expect US manufacturing to do a lot to lower production costs. More capacity in general obviously helps, and I could definitely see the US doing a lot to subsidize domestic production, if that counts as bringing down the costs. Maybe higher wages will lead to more automation.

[deleted]