TSMC delays US chip fab opening, says US talent is insufficient
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Of course there isn’t enough talent in chip manufacturing in a country that has been outsourcing their chip production for decades. This is just the maneuvering to get the coverage required to diversify supply, which must navigate both trade agreements and labor laws (like h1b).
But it must be done — and quickly — or there will be great risk to advanced technology hardware that could be catastrophic.
There is a HUGE push to ramp domestic US capabilities right now, from the liquid gas powered factories of Germany to the chip companies of Taiwan and other Asian countries. No other country is as self-contained from a food and energy perspective or nearly as defensible as the US and as we move to a multipolar world these kinds of moves are inevitable — and coming from the highest authorities in the land.
This trend is reversing because of of what happened in 2021 when the decline in domestic chip production was exposed by a worldwide supply chain crisis that led to calls for reshoring (near-shoring, friend-shoring, the semiconductor industry has a l out of terms for it) manufacturing to the US.
There really are only a handful of countries who even have advanced chip manufacturing capabilities, and as many of them are under threat from a changing world order, it’s important to address the need over concentration of supply chains to prevent future calamities.
Repatriation in this case was meant to mean returning something to the country of its origin, not some kind of weird nationalism or whatever you’re finding offensive about the term. That is the actual definition, though it’s also a term that can be used for people.
What’s a better one? Rebuilding domestic capacity? Bring back chip manufacturing that once existed in the US to the US? That’s literally what repatriating an outsourced industry means by definition. If you have better terms for it, I would genuinely love to explore them.
It is simply the act or process of restoring or returning someone or something to the country of origin, in this case creating a more robust global supply chain that won’t repeat the devastating impacts of the 2021 crisis. And it is the country that invented semiconductors, though Braun, Bose and many other global scientists contributed important contributions to the science — but largely the industry arose in the US — primarily at Bell labs, and with the work or Kilby and Noyce, who later went on to create Intel and the rest is history.
Perhaps there are more delicate ways to put it, but rebuilding domestic US manufacturing capabilities is important for everyone involved in most industries and not just a few countries or the semiconductor industry itself. The term literally means bringing things back to the country of origin and I know of none better to mean just that and not some Weird sideways Xenophobic implication. I think you probably don’t like it because the word is also frequently used for its other definition as a dogwhistle for racists in the unrelated and deeply politicized American immigration press, but I’d hate to lose articulate vocabulary that means precisely what it’s meant to just because the word is tainted by its alternative use in politics, but that’s a whole other debate.
Again you are misspeaking. The fabs weren't physically moved from the US to other countries, but rather people in the other countries built their own newer (and better) fabs. This Arizona fab, for instance, isn't something that was moved out that is being "returned" to its "country of origin". So it is more correct to say "rebuilding domestic capacity".
"It is simply the act or process of restoring or returning someone or something to the country of origin"
Again with "restoring" or "returning" you are presenting an arrogant attitude that these newer fabs somehow "belonged" to the US in the first place. I understand you don't intend it as a xenophobic way, but these language choices do matter, particularly when communicating in a global world.
> The fabs weren't physically moved from the US to other countries, but rather people in the other countries built their own newer (and better) fabs.
you intend to correct for xenophobia, but your bias has pushed past correction. these fabs were built by companies, governments, conglomerates. the people of the countries did not rise up and build fabs. the source of the individuals, both the able bodied and the planners, would have varied.
migrant work is not a uniquely american solution/problem.
all language choices now matter, because a machine will judge them at a later date and incorporate them into its corpus. (and likely underpaid workers will help determine the bias present.)
Around 2000 when i read some IEEE journals regarding VLSI the majority of people who published articles were of Asian descent (chinese, indian, persian).
Maybe US shall rethink its education system because "operation Paperclip " won't last forever.
While TSMC North America may need to follow US tax codes, employee unemployment insurance, I'm not sure how much negotiating power as a visa/sponsored employee you would have for high salary since your job is linked to your stay or related pay. I'm sure someone has figured out the best way for TSMC North America to bill the visa employees as contractors back to head quarters and avoid visa holder tax with holdings.
These two articles were interesting which indicate "TSMC profited from the tension between China and the U.S. by playing off both sides. Analysts say that TSMC building a plant in Arizona is “the minimal price to stay neutral.”[5][6]
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/h-1b-spec...
[2] https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary...
[3] https://www.tsmc.com/english/contact-us#TSMC-Subsidiaries
[4] https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-l-chapter-...
[5] https://international.thenewslens.com/article/135648 (2020-05-26)
[6] https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=2719&utm... (2020-05-21)
That is how you do knowledge transfer.
Therefore chips made in the US would not be nearly as profitable as the ones made in Taiwan therefore it makes no financial sense for TSMC to invest in the US other than for geopolitics.
So I have no idea how TSMC in the US could ever be profitable without big handouts from the US government.
My students looked into some TSMC jobs. The pay is terrible. And they don't scale up or pay for expertise.
Talking to people in the department who have worked there, they treat you like a replaceable cog who should be glad and honored to have a job. You have zero agency. You're told what to do, no explanations, no control. The boss is king.
Hard pass.
There is plenty of expertise in the US. Most of the technology TSMC uses was invented in the US. But people aren't willing to work for nothing, work insane hours and shifts, while being treated poorly, with no agency. I guess by those standards US workers are lacking.
https://www.uscis.gov/scams-fraud-and-misconduct/report-frau...
* The H-1B worker is not or will not be paid the wage certified on the Labor Condition Application (LCA).
* There is a wage disparity between H-1B workers and other workers performing the same or similar duties, particularly to the detriment of U.S. workers.
* The H-1B worker is not performing the duties specified in the H-1B petition, including when the duties are at a higher level than the position description.
* The H-1B worker has less experience than U.S. workers in similar positions in the same company.
* The H-1B worker is not working in the intended location as certified on the LCA.
Are they actually offering competitive jobs, or is this more of "Americans just don't want to work anymore!"
I don’t know what their criteria were for sending out that spam but no, if they were targeting experienced engineers at well known large US tech companies, it was not at all competitive and made me think they didn’t know how to hire here.
Get the training, work for them for a year and so and then to to Intel or whoever the US govt is funding to be competitive.
But if leadership is terrible how are they the no. 1 player in the world?
It's very boom and bust, between the big companies and contractors they employ they hire and fire thousands on yearly time scales. Long hours and mindless dedication to put in a lot of hours despite big misses by management leading to lots of cancelled half finished projects. Lots of work double time and weekends for 3 months and then they just shut it down anyway and expect you to find another job.
In my experience other tech industries, particularly in the bay area, things like big tech, med tech, etc. are much better fields for technical professionals to get into
It's a kickback sheme too probably, directors collude to clamp hiring to "the cream of the crop" which is basically no one, while the other 2 outfits benefit from monopsony and an influx of cheaper talent they can make investments until their own situation gets dire, and let hiring breathe again. A sort of autoeconomic career cycle dysplasia.
Most of these jobs are only open if you went to college, decided 2 years in that you wanted to work at one of these joints, worked in a lab for 4 years to get your masters, had excellent grades, and your PI was a friend of a friend.
HR just assumes like 99% of the population is deranged.
So, yes and no. Fab is neat but realistically if you like chips I'd really encourage you to go for VLSI and/or some other EE specialty since the US does have plenty of high paying demand from many companies for these positions.