[HN Gopher] Taiwan bans recruitment for jobs in China
___________________________________________________________________
Taiwan bans recruitment for jobs in China
Author : baybal2
Score : 173 points
Date : 2021-04-30 17:01 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (asia.nikkei.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (asia.nikkei.com)
| ipnon wrote:
| Economic interdependence is a deterrent to war. No country's
| government can easily handle recessions, but a depression in
| China would severely jeopardize the Faustian bargain the CCP has
| given to the citizens of PRC: forfeit your liberties and you are
| guaranteed prosperity.
|
| China is Taiwan's largest trading partner. Taiwan is China's 6th
| largest trading partner, but the total trade of Taiwan is worth
| more than 1/3 of China's total trade with America. That is an
| extraordinary amount for a country almost 14 times smaller than
| the United States.
|
| If trade is reduced between the two countries, it could lessen
| the economic damage taken by the PRC if it were to initiate an
| invasion, or even increase hybrid and gray-area warfare. This
| would mean such actions would constitute less political risk for
| the CCP.
| MikeUt wrote:
| On the other hand, an increase in trade gives China (the bigger
| partner) more leverage to pressure Taiwan using economic
| measures. Suppose 60% of all campaign political contributions
| came from China's puppet companies in Taiwan. Or if companies
| that lobby against China's interests suddenly (or gradually)
| find themselves cut off from the Chinese market, while large,
| politically-connected Chinese companies start undercutting them
| in the Taiwanese market.
|
| You don't need war to invade.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| My thoughts were just dominating their economy, bankrupting
| them, then putting Chinese politicians in power to take over
| a failed state. It'd look more legitimate than Russia
| annexing Crimea and since it's economic and complicated, the
| average person wouldn't care meaning minimal media coverage.
| If a regular person has to read more than a paragraph to full
| comprehend what happened, it's just not worth worrying about.
| elefanten wrote:
| The alternative is that China will continue to salami slice and
| break every marginal norm they can to choke and bleed out the
| (ideological) competition.
|
| Taiwan has to worry about large scale invasion but they also
| have to worry about China using size, lack of attention to the
| "small stuff" and inertia to much the same effect.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| How free are mainland engineers to take jobs in Taiwan? Can
| Taiwan recruit from the mainland talent pool?
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| A surprisingly silly move from an otherwise intelligent country.
|
| * Taiwanese prosecutors alleged last month that China's Bitmain
| Technologies, the world's leading cryptocurrency mining chip
| developer, illegally lured more than 100 engineers in Taiwan to
| boost its artificial intelligence prowess.*
|
| Ah yes, the illegal "offering money in exchange for services
| rendered" offense.
| iso8859-1 wrote:
| The money offered is illegitimate though, the government of the
| of the Republic has not authorized the rebels to print their
| own money.
| fallingknife wrote:
| When market conditions drive up the price of labor, the owners
| of large companies will:
|
| 1. legally or illegally bring in (or lobby the government to
| allow) an immigrant workforce to increase labor supply and
| drive down wages (e.g. us low skilled labor market)
|
| 2. collude with other companies not to compete over workers
| (e.g. tech industry anti-trust action from a few years ago)
|
| 3. pass laws against compensation reaching market levels (e.g.
| US during wwii, Taiwan today)
|
| 4. use forced labor (e.g. China today, US 1800's)
|
| I don't like it anymore than you do, but it's not new, and I
| wouldn't call it "silly"
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| You obviously know nothing about the geopolitical situation.
| Pretty much negates what you are saying.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| That seems like it's ignoring some other important
| circumstances, like a month ago, when their neighbor was
| staging military drills and threatening their existence if they
| don't agree to be annexed? https://www.usnews.com/news/world-
| report/articles/2021-04-09...
|
| You see what has happened in Hong Kong. This is a bit more
| nuanced than an issue of pay.
| xtian wrote:
| That article is vague even by the standards of Western
| reporting about China. This Reuters article about the same
| event is more specific: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
| taiwan-defence-idUSKBN2BU...
|
| It says Chinese fighters flew inside Taiwan's air defense
| identification zone. Here's a map which shows Taiwan's ADIZ:
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/JADIZ_an.
| ..
|
| You can make your own judgement as to whether that action
| constitutes an escalation of threat. As far as I'm aware,
| China's stance on what actions would trigger a military
| response regarding Taiwan has not changed in decades.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| I agree with you - it's an awful article, it was just the
| first one I found searching for the quote I was looking
| for. And you are right, more in the last four years Western
| and specifically in the US, coverage of China have been
| dubious, particularly some media entities. But I don't
| think the Strait of Taiwan tensions and the recent South
| China Sea escalations are anything that I need to find an
| article to document, though.
|
| If China can drastically weaken the semi industry in Taiwan
| by hiring away their top talent to sit around and do
| nothing, it would be a stunningly inexpensive way to help
| achieve this long term strategic objective. They would be
| foolish not to try, and it's understandable and correct
| Taiwan would see it in this light.
| chitowneats wrote:
| That stance being: we own Taiwan and we will depose their
| government by force if necessary, eventually. China senses
| this moment as one of profound weakness for the West. What
| makes you think they aren't preparing to strike while the
| iron is hot?
|
| Top brass in the U.S. military is saying an invasion is
| likely within the decade: https://www.newsweek.com/top-
| commander-fears-taiwan-could-in...
|
| Edit: I fail to see how China invading Taiwan could be
| considered a "military response", rather than a blatantly
| illegal land grab according to international law.
|
| Edit 2: The international law in question is the one
| forbidding annexation: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne
| ws/2020/07/israelopt-10-...
| dheera wrote:
| In practice, international law only applies to small
| countries with small militaries.
| chitowneats wrote:
| Correct
| rendang wrote:
| Sometimes, not even them.
| xtian wrote:
| > we own Taiwan and we will depose their government by
| force if necessary, eventually.
|
| Until very recently this was Taiwan's stance on China.
|
| What exactly would China gain from invading Taiwan? My
| understanding is that their main goal is preventing the
| expansion of US military presence and bases in the
| region, which Taiwan's pro-independence party supports.
|
| Response to your edit: China invading Taiwan would not be
| an annexation according to international law. A small
| minority of nations recognize Taiwan's sovereignty, and
| historically it is not a sovereign nation. Taiwan
| represents the losing side of a Chinese civil war that
| recently decided it wants to be a sovereign nation as its
| hopes of retaking the mainland have evaporated.
| chitowneats wrote:
| A propaganda coup, first of all. They have been promising
| their increasingly nationalistic populace this prize for
| nearly a century.
|
| Second: They eliminate a very important forward operating
| base for any future containment of China by Five Eyes &
| Co.
|
| Third: It's 23 million people who have built an advanced
| economy. Being able to siphon that wealth will be a
| massive boon for the CCP and other parts of China.
|
| The rationale for invasion is clear. Particularly if they
| have calculated they can't or won't be stopped. I know
| more than a few mainlanders and they all strongly believe
| that Taiwan and China will be "reunified" within their
| lifetime.
|
| Edit: Does anyone here care that none of the Taiwanese
| want to be part of China? Yes, they are the "losing side"
| of a civil war from almost a century ago. That's
| completely irrelevant given how long they have had
| sovereignty at this point. That they are not more widely
| recognized in the international community is a tragedy.
| The U.S. is correct to continue to support their
| independence.
| f6v wrote:
| > Third: It's 23 million people who have built an
| advanced economy. Being able to siphon that wealth will
| be a massive boon for the CCP and other parts of China.
|
| Right, who's going to buy from China-occupied Taiwan? In
| this scenario, there's going to be a massive disruption
| of Taiwanese economy. By the time it's over, someone else
| will outcompete them. It's not 17th century, capturing
| land doesn't guarantee any advantages.
|
| > Edit: Does anyone here care that none of the Taiwanese
| want to be part of China?
|
| I get you. Crimeans don't want to be a part of Ukraine
| either, yet the "international community" pretends they
| do. Life isn't fair, and Taiwanese not wanting something
| isn't going to change anything.
| chitowneats wrote:
| > Right, who's going to buy from China-occupied Taiwan?
|
| We've been buying from China-occupied China, including
| Xinjiang. Color me skeptical that international trade
| with China will fundamentally change in response to an
| invasion, ahem, "reunification". Taiwan's largest trading
| partner right now is mainland China. That will only
| accelerate with annexation and can offset export losses
| elsewhere.
|
| > I get you. Crimeans don't want to be a part of Ukraine
| either, yet the "international community" pretends they
| do.
|
| The U.S. is also correct to oppose the annexation of
| Crimea and further destabilization of the Donbass.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > Crimeans don't want to be a part of Ukraine either, yet
| the "international community" pretends they do.
|
| I don't think the international community pretends any
| such thing. It just doesn't oppose it strongly enough to
| start a shooting war with Russia.
| petre wrote:
| > Does anyone here care that none of the Taiwanese want
| to be part of China?
|
| It would probably help if Taiwan had nuclear weapons.
| China wouldn't risk an invasion. That or maybe I don't
| know enough about Asia.
| yeetman21 wrote:
| >Does anyone here care that none of the Taiwanese want to
| be part of China?
|
| Who cares what they want? The confederacy succeeded from
| the Union and the Union invaded it.
| xtian wrote:
| > Third: It's 23 million people who have built an
| advanced economy. Being able to siphon that wealth will
| be a massive boon for the CCP and other parts of China.
|
| Ah yes, the filthy lucre of siphoning an economy with 4%
| of their own GDP.
| chitowneats wrote:
| 4% is 4%. They are paying the expenditures to maintain
| their military. Why would they not be looking for a
| return on their investment? It's strange we're even
| arguing about this given that their official position is
| that they will invade in due time if Taiwan does not
| unconditionally surrender.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-
| taiw...
|
| "In its annual work report this year, the Chinese
| government removed the word "peaceful" from long-standing
| references to "reunification" with Taiwan."
| xtian wrote:
| Their official position is that they will invade _if any
| of a few specific things occur._ And China 's military
| spending is less than 4% of their GDP last I checked.
| That seems pretty good to me given all the geopolitical
| aggression they're receiving from the country that makes
| up 38% of global military spending.
| chitowneats wrote:
| The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free
| democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". Claiming
| sovereignty over land you have not controlled for an
| entire human lifetime quite certainly is. I'll end my
| participation in this discussion with a quote from the
| Taiwanese:
|
| "We fill fight a war if we need to fight a war, and if we
| need to defend ourselves to the very last day, then we
| will defend ourselves to the very last day"
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-
| end-co...
| f6v wrote:
| > The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free
| democracy is not "geopolitical aggression".
|
| This is a naive view of geopolitics. Check out where
| Kurds ended up by counting on the US.
| chitowneats wrote:
| I never said the U.S. was likely to uphold their promise
| to prevent an invasion. The U.S. is however providing the
| Taiwanese with advanced military equipment. And their
| threat of defending Taiwan, no matter how hollow you
| judge it to be, is perhaps the only reason Taiwan is
| still an independent nation in 2021.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free
| democracy is not "geopolitical aggression".
|
| So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years
| Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? I
| don't understand how the internal government can be the
| decider over whether it's aggressive.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years
| Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy?
|
| Yes, it was still aggression. The US opposed it then
| under the grounds of "containing Communism" rather than
| "defending democracy".
|
| > I don't understand how the internal government can be
| the decider over whether it's aggressive.
|
| _If you invade somewhere to take it over against the
| wishes of the locals, that 's aggressive._ How is that
| hard to understand?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >If you invade somewhere to take it over against the
| wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard
| to understand?
|
| I have no idea what part of my post made it seem like I
| wouldn't find an invasion aggressive, it clearly would
| be. I wasn't discussing an invasion at all.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Then I clearly misunderstood this line:
|
| > I don't understand how the internal government can be
| the decider over whether it's aggressive.
|
| Would you explain what you meant by it?
|
| (And, my apologies for the yelling. I in fact thought
| that you were saying that an invasion would not be
| aggression, which... yeah. We both agree that such an
| idea is wrong.
| wonnage wrote:
| Taiwan was run by a military dictatorship until 1986
|
| *edit: 1986 was a long time ago, but the point is that
| the KMT was a corrupt and unpopular government which lost
| to the Communists, but the US held its nose and propped
| it up for 30+ years until Nixon needed a counterweight to
| the USSR and opened relations with China.
| Leary wrote:
| Which international law would China be violating by
| invading Taiwan?
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| That would be https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-
| charter/chapter-7 if I'm not mistaken. It is neither
| authorized or self-defense.
| randomopining wrote:
| Taiwan fits all criteria under international law for a
| country. Plus CCP would kill hundreds of thousands or
| millions during a forceful invasion of Taiwan.
|
| Laws always have loopholes. It's clear that the CCP would
| be doing something evil by attacking a peaceful island
| nation. They want control.
| f6v wrote:
| > Plus CCP would kill hundreds of thousands or millions
| during a forceful invasion of Taiwan.
|
| > They want control.
|
| Does not add up. Who're they going to control if they
| kill millions? I mean, why do they even have to start a
| military offensive when they can eventually outcompete
| Taiwan? Just think how many top-rated universities China
| has.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| > Does not add up. Who're they going to control if they
| kill millions?
|
| Their citizens on the mainland. The CCP believes that if
| they don't look good, their days are numbered and
| revolution will be inevitable.
| xtian wrote:
| A survey conducted by the Harvard Kennedy School found
| that satisfaction with the central government in China
| rose from 86.1% in 2003 to 93.1% in 2016:
| https://ash.harvard.edu/publications/understanding-ccp-
| resil...
|
| Is the US government's abysmal approval rating by
| comparison a sign of our free thinking and freedom, or do
| you think we'll have a revolution here soon?
| liuliu wrote:
| Because the people who answer the survey cannot freely
| express their mind, otherwise another mysterious group of
| people will start to kill them and their families.
| Everyone knows CCP controls these assassins through their
| seat at the High Table. Free tip: you can hide inside the
| Continental Hotel where these assassins cannot kill you
| on that ground.
| chitowneats wrote:
| This is laughable. Chinese citizens are required to
| approve of their government, lest they run afoul of the
| national social credit system. That the study was
| conducted by a Western organization is irrelevant.
| Chinese citizens know that their communications with the
| West are not private, and perhaps even especially subject
| to monitoring and intrusion from their government.
|
| Edit: I usually don't call out blatant CCP astroturfing
| on this site. But I want to draw everyone's attention to
| the video that u/xtian just shared in the comment below.
| It's clearly Chinese Communist Party propaganda. It's
| tagged #serpentza and #laowhy86 because those are the two
| most famous Western streamers who have lived in China for
| decades. The CCP specifically targets people who watch
| their videos for counter programming. I'm done
| interacting with this "person", but will respond to
| comments from others.
|
| Check out serpentza's youtube for the truth about China:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl7mAGnY4jh4Ps8rhhh8XZg
| xtian wrote:
| Yeah true the only way to know their real interests is to
| listen to the West. That's why when native Chinese people
| say the social credit system doesn't exist I call them
| liars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPvnGhbj9A
|
| Edit: chitowneats, if you don't believe I'm a real person
| message me on Keybase. We can discuss whatever you'd
| like. Or just keep believing it's impossible for any real
| person to have political views that fall outside the
| boundaries set by NATO propaganda.
| chitowneats wrote:
| Anyone here with any technical literacy knows that the
| fact that you have a keybase account, and associated
| pseudonym, does not prove anything.
|
| Edit: Response to the comment below. Being rate limited.
|
| The West is past the point of naively believing that the
| CCP does not have multi-decade information ops being
| conducted against their governments and citizenry.
|
| Also, that was _exactly_ your assertion. What would be
| the point of bringing up your irrelevant keybase account
| if it was not an attempt to mislead me and others on this
| site?
| xtian wrote:
| That wasn't my assertion, but I could tell you my life
| story, send you a picture of my neighborhood, etc. I want
| you to believe, brother. You think the CPC made a HN
| account to post about jQuery 10 years ago just so they
| could eventually correct your lukewarm takes on Taiwan?
|
| Response to your edit: Is the CPC in the room with you
| now, chitowneats?
| [deleted]
| emptysongglass wrote:
| It's about more than the population of Taiwan or the
| strategic importance of its chips: it means control of
| the South Chinese Sea. Between the US Navy and Taiwan's
| alliance, China's broader ambitions for economic and
| military control of the region are stymied.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| They're going to remain in control of the mainland
| population, by giving them a big patriotic victory. (And
| by delivering on what they said, over and over, that they
| were going to do.)
| luckylion wrote:
| > Taiwan fits all criteria under international law for a
| country.
|
| Taiwan claims that they're not separate from China. Their
| disagreement is over who should be in charge, not whether
| they're the same country currently engaged in a power
| struggle between regions.
| randomopining wrote:
| Yeah because if they claimed they were separate they
| would cross the CCP's "red line".
|
| The Taiwan populace doesn't want to take over the
| mainland.
|
| There's literally no way you can spin this that makes
| sense besides the CCP wants control of a physical island
| to push out the US/Japan.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Sure, they claim that. Try traveling from one to the
| other (either direction) without crossing border control.
| Or, try to find the common point of authority in the
| command structures of their respective militaries.
| They're two countries, no matter what they say they are.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| You're confusing two things. The context of the
| discussion was International Law. You're talking about
| practical reality which is almost orthogonal to
| international law.
| f6v wrote:
| > Top brass in the U.S. military is saying an invasion is
| likely within the decade
|
| So you're saying if China/Russia/Iran did not have any
| plans whatsoever, the US generals would just say
| "Alrighty, you can now defund us!". Those guys will cry
| wolf any day to get those sweet $billions.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"The international law"
|
| The law is only as good as there is an entity capable and
| willing to impartially enforce it. Meanwhile as it stands
| now any reasonably capable country can show big fat
| middle finger to that concept which makes it but a
| mockery.
| f6v wrote:
| Nuclear weapons + huge economy = I do whatever I want.
| [deleted]
| ricksunny wrote:
| I think the recruitment ban policy is super-smart given the
| context.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Nice post about how Taiwan's work environment is sadly missing
| its potential:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19492995
|
| > komali2 on March 26, 2019 | parent | un-favorite | on: Google
| will open a new office complex and add hund...
|
| >>Last year, the project trained about 5,000 students in AI
| technology and 50,000 digital marketers.
|
| >I feel like Taiwan represents a talent opportunity like no
| other. I dream of starting an engineering company there that is
| literally a clone of some upcoming business model, and doing
| nothing but capping the work week at 40 hours and guaranteeing 4
| weeks vacation. I could snipe the best talent on hand in the
| country, which is at the very least equal to some of the best
| silicon valley has to offer, at nearly half the rates. Lord
| forbid we target foreign contracts and the company can pay near
| US rates. I'd pilfer everyone's engineering department ;)
|
| >Overworked, underpaid, extremely competent was my experience of
| Taiwanese engineering. Google is good to step up in Taiwan - I
| believe it will pay dividends for them. I wonder what the Google
| work culture and salaries are like for their Taipei 101 office
| engineers? Last I checked it was about 2,000$/month for entry
| level.
| seriousblap wrote:
| From a Taiwan vantage point, is it feasible to ban domestic
| workers watching China located jobs via Linkedin or other such
| platforms?
| yongjik wrote:
| Only ban recruiters? Amateurs. South Korea used to charge those
| moving employees with industrial espionage. (Maybe it still does,
| but at least I didn't hear about these "incidents" in recent
| years, so I'm cautiously hopeful.)
| cigaser wrote:
| North Korea shoots employees who try to move.
| [deleted]
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| 1. TSMC pay its employees well compare to other companies in
| Taiwan. they are also know for paying big yearly bonus.
|
| 2. this news is interesting. i'm guessing we have reach to the
| point where Taiwan have to use this tactic to prevent brain
| drain. it also shown us how aggressive China is to make Made in
| China 2025, a reality. semis chip is the biggest China import.
|
| 3. there are several news about China poaching TSMC employees
| before. this is really going to test TSMC, from what i understand
| their high end node production process is componentized and not
| one person know the whole process from start to end. we'll see if
| that is true.
| swiley wrote:
| Competing with China seems like a pretty low bar: imagine
| google's ban happy AI except that instead of banning you it takes
| your passport, cuts of government services, and potentially
| throws you in prison to have your organs harvested.
|
| If you're actually losing employees to that you have a _serious_
| moral /retention/communication/pay problem.
| fatjokes wrote:
| "We're free market!" ... "Whoa whoa, not like that." Seriously
| just pay these people more.
| danuker wrote:
| Agree. TSMC is of strategic national importance. The people
| should be paid for the role.
| Leary wrote:
| So.. TSMC can't post job postings in Mainland China but what's to
| stop engineers from being hired to SMIC?
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| 1. Taiwan barring its citizens from taking such jobs - that's
| what the story is - did you even read it??
|
| 2. Any person who left TSMC for SMIC is blacklisted now.
| They'll never work in Hsinchu et al. again.
| hollerith wrote:
| >Taiwan barring its citizens from taking such jobs - that's
| what the story is - did you even read it?
|
| I just read the OP and found nothing about barring citizens
| from taking jobs.
| Leary wrote:
| Where in the article does it say Taiwan is barring its
| citizens from taking such jobs. It's simply telling the
| staffing companies to remove such postings. The engineers
| could still apply directly.
| east2west wrote:
| Believe it or not, TSMC owns and operates a fab in Mainland
| China, a 28nm one. So I imagine it posts quite a bit of job
| posting in China. It has recently applied for fab expansion in
| China, asking for some of that sweet, sweet free money CCP is
| doling out.
| jlduan wrote:
| I guess current TSMC employees can not leverage other job offers
| (most of them are from mainland China) to increase their salaries
| anymore. Essentially, the government is helping TSMC to keep the
| labor cost low.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| Not a good take. TSMC is known for paying well above average in
| the industry, as well as having an internal culture of pretty
| fierce loyalty. On top of that, fab is very highly automated.
| Even though you need a lot of very smart engineers, head count
| is still very low compared to the value the fab creates.
| Suppressing labor prices is pretty low down the list of
| priorities for this industry. Costs are utterly dominated by
| capital costs to build a new generation of your fab every 2
| years.
| jlduan wrote:
| 1. if employees are paid higher than average, why does TSMC
| need government's very targeted policy help. 2. the need to
| update the costly fab constantly might be the motivation to
| further squeeze employees. TSMC needs to invest even more to
| compete with US and China.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| Because recruitment from TSMC to China is not an ordinary
| labor market. TSMC vs SMIC has huge geopolitical
| implications for Taiwan, China, and the world at large
| even. Most companies don't have "CCP's intelligence
| services are going to spend millions to entice, bribe, or
| coerce our key engineers to jump ship" as part of their
| recruiting concerns.
|
| As for point 2, TSMC's financials are public. They spend
| ~30 million a year on payroll. On the other hand they
| expect to invest a total of 100 billion into their next
| generation fab over the next 3 years. The idea that penny
| pinching salary is what enables their capital spend is
| hilariously out of touch with the scale of the relative
| expenses.
| jlduan wrote:
| I don't think only SMIC recruitment is banned based on
| the article. Could you give an example what "CPP
| intelligence services" are doing to "entice, bribe, or
| coerce our key engineers"? Politicizing all the
| recrements does not seem fair for employees. Basically,
| TSMC is trusting their employees, is that what you are
| saying?
|
| This could be ONCE IN A LIFETIME career jump, using
| national security as a reason to deny employees' career
| development and salaries negotiation doesn't seem fair.
| jlduan wrote:
| based on the article, it is not just semiconductor
| industry, it is ALL job listing. Wow, kinda of extreme.
| godelski wrote:
| Because China is offering 3x the pay. Obviously this isn't
| sustainable. But China can pay higher (through government
| help) that disrupts things. The pay is so high no company
| could sustain business. It already creates a situation
| where competition is out the window.
|
| The US and China should invest in their own fabs and become
| less dependent upon TSMC (which is happening and even if
| both dumped enormous funds into this it would take quite a
| long time to overtake TSMC. Which is why China is doing
| this in the first place).
| fnord77 wrote:
| > Because China is offering 3x the pay. Obviously this
| isn't sustainable.
|
| in the software world, I've seen this happen and the
| salaries never get rolled back. So it will have to be
| sustainable...
| godelski wrote:
| Sure, but those company's extra cash flow isn't coming
| from the government, they are coming from capital
| investors. At the end of the day these two have
| completely different motives. A capital investor expects
| to get capital back, where a government may not.
| Motivation could be to harm another country, a long term
| (20+ years) technological investment, or many other
| things.
|
| Considering the geopolitical situation we could interpret
| this as an attack and defense (economic warfare). TSMC is
| Taiwan's most important industry and is one of the
| reasons the West helps protect them (besides the military
| advantage of location). China has long said that Taiwan
| is not a sovereign nation and rather a rebellious
| territory that is acting illegally. What we're seeing is
| part of a war going on, not two companies competing (TSMC
| vs SMIC).
| varispeed wrote:
| The problem is that the workers in the industry are severely
| underpaid. Even the "above average" pay may actually be way
| below what the workers should be getting. Let's say they have
| 50000 employees and for simplicity let's look at their 17
| billion profit last year. Based on industry standard margin
| of 30%, each employee should be getting 100k USD extra a year
| on top of what they already make. That not adjusted for the
| role - some should be getting 1 million and others 10k. It's
| a pure exploitation however you dress it.
| jollybean wrote:
| This seems odd, but it's also unreasonable that a small economy
| would be able to defend itself from competition from a large
| state actor.
|
| In 'free trade' deals, the big fear is you 'open up' to
| competition while the other nation uses massive government money
| to gut your industry, wipe you out and take over. That's why the
| legal language on Free Trade surrounds government intervention
| and subsidies.
|
| China is huge and this is a 'primary strategic concern' for them,
| they will pay anything for the individuals they need, and of
| course, to give Taiwan a black eye.
|
| This is literally a form of economic warfare we are seeing with a
| large country trying to wipe out a strategic industry in a
| smaller country.
|
| So the action by Taiwan is understandable, even if it seems odd
| to use in the West.
| daodedickinson wrote:
| Seems like too little too late.
| zachguo wrote:
| This is meaningless. Taiwanese can still access job posting sites
| or be contacted by recruiters from Mainland China. There's no
| language barrier and they can simply buy a flight ticket to
| Shanghai and start working wherever they want with full Chinese
| citizenship.
|
| The brain drain is serious and I don't see how it can be solved
| unless Taiwan can offer competitive salaries against first-tier
| cities in the mainland, 10% of Taiwanese population is now living
| and working in the mainland.
| necrotic_comp wrote:
| Taiwan isn't part of China. Using the term "mainland" is
| extremely loaded.
| dathinab wrote:
| Saying Taiwan isn't part of China isn't right, but neither is
| saying it is part of China. Similar the term mainland while
| maybe not liked by all Taiwan wouldn't necessary be that
| wrong either on technical terms.
|
| Because things are complicate ...
|
| Both Taiwan and China are "China".
|
| Basically China/CCP claims the Taiwanese government are
| rebels, and the Taiwanese land belongs to China.
|
| But Taiwan is also claiming that the CCP and co. are rebels
| and the Chinese/CCP land belongs to them.
|
| I.e. both claim to "be" China.
|
| So the reason Taiwan is called Taiwan and not China is
| because it's mainly limited to the island of Taiwan.
|
| But this also means that using e.g. China/Mainland and
| China/Taiwan isn't wrong either.
|
| In the end from a Taiwan historic point of few China/Mainland
| is the mainland they have lost.
|
| I myself found it annoying that many western countries don't
| officially recognize Taiwan.
|
| Until I learned about that fact, which explains a lot of
| things.
|
| The relevant part is that Taiwan officially kinda sees
| themself as part of the historic/demographic/non CCP defined
| China, but NOT as part of the "political" China controlled by
| the CCP.
|
| Naturally due to years separation both have developed in
| different directions and from a external point of few both
| China and Taiwan are separate countries with separate
| governments, land, politics etc.
|
| Anyway I'm not a China/Taiwan expert, I hope I got things
| more or less right.
|
| I guess the main takeaway is that the relationship between
| Taiwan and China is much more complicated than many people
| from the other side of the world believe it is.
|
| I personally thought for a long time it basically "just"
| Taiwan is a country split of from china which aims to be
| independent from China and go it's own way but is suppressed
| by China but also somewhat protected by external forces
| mainly the US. Well I was wrong and things are more
| complicated than that.
| filoleg wrote:
| I think they used "mainland" here, so that it is
| differentiated from something like Hong Kong. And in this
| case, that differentiation actually matters and helps the
| context.
|
| Tl;dr: the parent comment didn't use "mainland" to imply that
| Taiwan is a part of China. They used it to say "contacted by
| recruiters from Mainland China [as opposed to recruiters from
| HK]"
| Y_Y wrote:
| Ya exactly, China is part of Taiwan!
|
| But seriously, this is a standard non-politicised term.
| hi5eyes wrote:
| I think if you were to talk to hkers or taiwanese you would
| know that the term "mainland" is pretty well understood
| iso8859-1 wrote:
| Taiwan is an island in a country formally known as "Republic
| of China". So yes, it is China. The mainland is occupied by
| communist rebels, but it also belongs to the Republic of
| China. Happy to help!
| belval wrote:
| I understand the why, but I feel like they could also ask TSMC to
| pay their workers more.
|
| Say India did the same for software engineers leaving for the US,
| we'd see it as government overreach.
| sularin wrote:
| China is offering triple the salary to those people.It's
| impossible to keep up for a country as small as Taiwan. The end
| goal for China is not to immediately outcompete TSMC but make
| Taiwan beg to be integrated into China.
| varispeed wrote:
| TSMC had 17 billion USD profit last year, right? How come
| they are unable to triple or in fact pay 10 times they
| already pay? It's simple greed in my book. It's always CEO
| cry that they cannot find talent while flying a private jet
| and offering 5 digit salary.
| azurezyq wrote:
| Also note that 3x is not only for TSMC employees. Even for
| fresh CS graduates, China mainland pays way more than taiwan.
|
| https://www.payscale.com/research/CN/Job=Software_Engineer/S.
| ..
|
| https://www.payscale.com/research/TW/Job=Software_Engineer/S.
| ..
|
| It's about 1/3 more, if we only consider big cities like
| Beijing / Shanghai / Taipei, the difference is just larger.
| SWE is almost the best paid job kind there. Hardware is
| similar.
|
| I have to say the best way is to pay more. They deserve it.
| Just blaming the other side doesn't help.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Very similar to how the US used military spending to cause
| the USSR to exhaust its resources.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| That's a popular thought in the US, in particular among
| political activists, but from what I understand, economists
| dismiss Reagan's unprecedented peacetime deficit spending
| on the military, and rather point to internal
| inefficiencies in the Soviet economy, and critically the
| global price of oil.
|
| Like Russia today, the Soviet Union's economy was centered
| on exports of raw materials, in particular oil and gas.
| Wells were needing to be recapitalized, but with low prices
| the money wasn't available to revitalize the economic
| engine of the country. Luckily for the Soviet Union, the
| oil crises of the 1970s jacked up the price of oil, thus
| allowing them to stave off collapse until prices fell back
| to their historical average. In other words, if it wasn't
| for OPEC, the Soviet Union would have collapsed under Nixon
| or Carter.
|
| https://www.aei.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2011/10/20070419_Gaid...
|
| https://www.rbth.com/history/331825-saudi-arabia-oil-
| crisis-...
|
| https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/29/formation-and-
| evolu...
| echelon wrote:
| What's your take on the future of China, Taiwan, Asia,
| and the US?
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| China - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY_zsc0wf1Y
|
| I am not an expert on geopolitics and when it come to
| CCP's data. I'll always assumed false/fake then verify
| but one thing is real is the One Child Policy. Xi want
| dual circulation economy but I highly doubt that's going
| to happen with its population decline. China going to
| deal with labors, support older population, long term
| impact on economy...etc.
|
| if Peter is correct, China is becoming another old folks
| home like Japan. China's birth rate is already
| approaching Japan's level.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Africa and India have young populations, they'll be the
| powerhouses of the second half of this century.
| eloff wrote:
| So if I remember correctly Soviet military spending
| reached 10% of their GDP which was unsustainable.
|
| I wonder if that was due to GDP falling with weak oil
| prices, or just rising military budget with a stagnant
| economy.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Probably all of the above.
|
| Fun fact: No one knows how percentage of GDP the Soviets
| were spending on their military, but 10% is the _low_
| estimate. (See second figure.)
|
| The fifth figure should put to rest the idea that the
| Soviets tried to meet an increase in US military spending
| in the 80s. They didn't. In fact, the president exact
| opposite is true. The US increased spending due to an
| increase by the Soviets in the mid 1970s. Soviet spending
| didn't really increase at all in the 1980s.
|
| https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-military-spending/
| cdumler wrote:
| But, that's now how capitalism works. Capitalism is workers
| must compete for jobs, services and goods. Capitalism for
| companies and rich are how to buy off the right people and laws
| to prevent competition.
|
| I remember in business school how it drilled into us that there
| are only two important numbers in a company. The price of your
| product, and the cost of your product. "You can only dictate
| your cost of your product because your market dictates what you
| can sell it for." Every time I hear things like "we can't find
| enough people" or "yeah, but then we'll just pass it along in
| our cost to customers," I know how much we don't have
| capitalism.
| sularin wrote:
| It's a bit more nuanced than that.For Taiwan it's a matter of
| survival not a question of money.You literally cant compete
| with a behemoth like China.
| belval wrote:
| From your comment I am not sure that I understand if you
| agree of disagree with the move.
|
| Capitalism here is not the issue. If China pays more they get
| the workers. That's capitalism as its core. If TSMC wants to
| retain their workers they have to dig in their 40% profit
| margins and increase salaries to compete for talent. If they
| want to increase the price of their chips to account for that
| payroll increase that will make Samsung (or whoever else)
| more competitive and that's capitalism as well.
|
| > Every time I hear things like "we can't find enough people"
| or "yeah, but then we'll just pass it along in our cost to
| customers," I know how much we don't have capitalism.
|
| I agree and it makes me angry, individual freedoms are and
| should stay a thing. If you can't pay your employees a salary
| that makes them want to work for you, they are not the
| problem and your competitors are not the problem.
| cdumler wrote:
| > If TSMC wants to retain their workers they have to dig in
| their 40% profit margins and increase salaries to compete
| for talent.
|
| I agree completely. I was trying to comment on the Western
| narrative about capitalism: "Capitalism is all fine and
| dandy unless it impacts me negatively."
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| If you're competing with _the government of China_ , then
| _capitalism_ isn 't really the rules of the competition.
| toast0 wrote:
| The market doesn't really dictate your sales price. The
| market may dictate the price vs sales curve.
|
| If you raise prices, usually unit sales will fall (although,
| not always) and sometimes there's a big cliff as you approach
| (or surpass) competitors' prices.
| Retric wrote:
| Try and increase prices by 1,000,000,000x and say the
| market doesn't set prices. Markets give you wiggle room,
| but maximum profit is the goal not simply moving some
| units.
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| TSMC pays very well compared to other companies in the same
| market. I'm guessing you are hearing from people who've never
| worked for UMC or PowerChip!
|
| Of course, the other fun fact: ANY TSMC employees who went to
| China will never get jobs in Hsinchu et al. ever again. One-way
| decision only. Burned bridge.
| varispeed wrote:
| > TSMC pays very well
|
| Many big companies indeed pay relatively well in comparison
| to other professions, but workers are heavily underpaid. You
| can't justify the fact that companies have multi-billion
| profits and they pay "market rate" salaries at the same time.
| This is exploitation of workers, but because the amount they
| are being paid seems to be big, nobody seems to be
| protesting. Most tech workers should be earning in seven
| digits.
| jsmcgd wrote:
| > Most tech workers should be earning in seven digits
|
| According to which metric?
| ev1 wrote:
| 1 million Taiwan dollars is 30k USD
| fossuser wrote:
| I think it's more akin to sanctions on doing business in
| Iran.
|
| The CCP is a direct hostile threat to Taiwan, I can
| understand why they're doing this.
| luckylion wrote:
| Wouldn't they do the same if it was France poaching them?
| The language and cultural barrier make it harder for
| European or American countries to recruit them, but I
| have no doubt they'd react similarly if they saw
| significant numbers leaving for Europe.
| fossuser wrote:
| They might and I'd argue that would be wrong.
|
| In the case of the CCP though, I understand it.
| billyzs wrote:
| why the double standard?
| liuliu wrote:
| Then just do a sanction on business with mainland like
| U.S. did with Iran. As it is, these are very targeted
| moves. Taiwan to decoupling from China would only be good
| for them.
| newacct583 wrote:
| UMC and PowerChip are not remotely "in the same market",
| unless you define market to mean "China".
|
| TSMC competes with Samsung and Intel. If they don't
| compensate their engineers accordingly they can expect to
| lose them.
| belval wrote:
| TSMC here is really a placeholder for Taiwanese companies.
| shalmanese wrote:
| What? No they don't. TSMC starting wages [1] for a Masters
| degree candidate is $19,500 USD per year, for a bachelor's
| degree is $13,000 USD per year. Their median salary is less
| than $60K USD (which includes US engineers who are paid much
| more).
|
| They were finally shamed into a 20% above the board wage hike
| last November [2] but before then, they went a solid 10 years
| of 3 - 5% COL adjustments.
|
| They might pay well compared to other Taiwanese semi
| companies but that's only an indictment over how dismal the
| Taiwanese employment situation is. They're not lacking money,
| they're just cheap because the executive team culturally does
| not believe in rewarding talent.
|
| [1] https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3925769 [2]
| https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4052667
| bosswipe wrote:
| The Chinese companies are owned or funded by the government,
| they don't have to worry about profit. It is geopolitical
| economic warfare. A company cannot compete against that without
| government help.
| ChemSpider wrote:
| Yeah, but the key difference is that Taiwan is under direct
| threat from China. Mr. Xi openly said that he will take back
| Taiwan by force if necessary. Weakening the Taiwan
| semiconductor industry is certainly part of this playbook, too.
|
| Imagine if the US would consider India to be part of its
| territory and asking for a "re-unification". I am sure that in
| this case India would try to prevent key software engineers
| from leaving, too. Actually, I am surprised that Taiwan has
| done so little so far.
| newacct583 wrote:
| All that may be true, but the net effect of this policy is to
| artificially depress wages of people working in Taiwan. Even
| if one buys into the "existential threat" model, it seems
| like forcing that burden onto the backs of your most
| important competitive asset is... sort of horrifyingly
| counterproductive.
| ipnon wrote:
| Presumably they would be poached to work in China and not
| Taiwan.
| newacct583 wrote:
| That's the policy. But the _effect_ is that TSMC doesn 't
| need to raise salaries to retain workers, they can rely
| on the government to prevent the workers from being
| recruited in the first place.
|
| (edit: Can I say how amazingly hilarious it is watching
| all these notionally free-marketeer libertarians who
| believe in just compensation rush in to explain why it's
| totally OK for the Taiwanese government to shamelessly
| restrain trade as long as they're trying to stick it to
| the PRC?)
| donw wrote:
| TSMC will always lose that bid against a hostile state
| actor (the PRC) which can totally ignore market value in
| pursuit of strategic goals.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| It doesn't _aritificially_ depress wages if China was
| offering artificially high wages in the first place.
| spaced-out wrote:
| If these people really are critical to the survival and
| future of your country, how can any wage be too high?
| fighterpilot wrote:
| You're thinking in absolutes. We would both agree that a
| billion dollars a month is too high.
|
| And I don't see how what you've said is related to what I
| said, which was a critique of the idea that this move is
| artificially depressing wages when allegedly it's an
| attempt to stop poaching of key talent at artificially
| high _non market_ rates.
| spaced-out wrote:
| >We would both agree that a billion dollars a month is
| too high.
|
| I would not necessarily agree. There are CEOs who make
| around that amount, why shouldn't an engineer make that
| much if they're equally important to the organization?
|
| From what I could gather from Google, TSMC engineers make
| far less than I do as a FAANG engineer, and TSMC posted a
| ~$14 billion profit last year. If these employees are so
| important to Taiwan's future, why can't they at least pay
| them FAANG-level salaries? It's not that they don't have
| the money.
| elefanten wrote:
| There are other places in the world Taiwanese talent can
| work. And other sources of FDI in Taiwan that can create
| wage competition -- see other comments about Google.
|
| China is uniquely and specifically trying to destroy
| Taiwan. The exception makes sense and doesn't have a
| totalizing effect.
| blackoil wrote:
| This is kind of an anti-dumping measure by Taiwan.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Taiwanese workers may find their wages lowered due to
| lack of China bidding on their salaries, but there's
| still the rest of the world.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The vast majority of the pressure comes from China.
| viking1066 wrote:
| Most Indians would be thrilled to become US citizens.
|
| So this is not a good analogy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-30 23:01 UTC)