[HN Gopher] U.S. Chip Revival Plan Chooses Sites
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. Chip Revival Plan Chooses Sites
Author : pseudolus
Score : 51 points
Date : 2024-11-05 20:14 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| throw0101a wrote:
| Well the revival may be halted depending on the election:
|
| > _The US CHIPS and Science Act 's future may depend on the
| outcome of Tuesday's Presidential Election after House Speaker
| Mike Johnson suggested the GOP would likely move to repeal the
| $280 billion funding bill if the party wins a majority in
| Congress._
|
| * https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/04/chips_act_repeal/
|
| but a little while later:
|
| > _Johnson, who voted against the legislation, later said in a
| statement that the CHIPS Act, which poured $54 billion into the
| semiconductor manufacturing industry, "is not on the agenda for
| repeal."_
|
| * https://apnews.com/article/mike-johnson-chips-act-d5504f76d3...
|
| so -\\_(tsu)_/-
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| Partisan scare tactics? Which outcome would result in loss?
|
| Wasn't it Trump who popularized the pullback of Chip
| manufacturing to the US for security ad prosperity reasons.
| standardUser wrote:
| Trump's tariffs were aimed at a lot of goods, but _not_
| chips. The push and subsequent law to get chip manufacturing
| back into the US was entirely a Biden project.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _Wasn 't it Trump who popularized the pullback of Chip
| manufacturing to the US for security ad prosperity reasons._
|
| And how's that Foxconn factory going?
|
| * https://www.reuters.com/business/foxconn-sharply-scales-
| back...
| wavefunction wrote:
| Nah, it wasn't him.
| wumeow wrote:
| I would trust his first statement more than his second. He only
| backed off after he faced criticism that could affect the
| congressman's election. The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy
| win so you can bet the GOP will want to repeal it.
| kurthr wrote:
| Here was his statement:
|
| https://youtu.be/hzwQXL77VVA?t=64
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| My hunch is something like NAFTA -> USMCA would happen with
| CHIPS. Repeal and replace with basically the same to make it
| look like a GOP win.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win
|
| I'm a huge fan of the CHIPS Act, but most Americans have not
| heard of it [0].
|
| That lack of noteriety is what protects it.
|
| Doesn't hurt that most deal flow is in purple districts, so
| most shit-slingers tend to be far removed and shut up pretty
| quickly after a quick rebuke from Party Chairs about how
| close the election is.
|
| [0] - https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018f-3fe4-dc61-adff-
| 7fe53...
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Well the revival may be halted depending on the election
|
| Not a fan of the GOP, but industry is operating on the
| assumption that most industrial policies under the Biden admin
| will continue to remain.
|
| There's been a lot of policy research and lobbying on this
| front for over a year at this point [0]
|
| Doesn't hurt that a number of major Trump-Vance donors have
| benefited from these industrial policies as well.
|
| Sadly, most deal flow is anyhow locked up because the Commerce
| has been slow at disbursing funds due to bipartisan politicking
| (eg. GOP trying to undermine the CHIPS act due to pettiness,
| CPC affiliates trying to launch unnecessary NEPA and Labor
| fights)
|
| That said, even companies knew that would happen - and a lot of
| deal flow was strategically placed in purple districts for that
| reason.
|
| Foreign automakers and their supppliers used a similar strategy
| in the 1990s-2000s when entering the US market by opening
| factories in then-Purple Tennessee, Kentucky, WV, etc.
|
| [0] - https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-
| industrial-p...
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Micron is a defense critical company. They're getting their new
| fab no matter what because China can more readily target Boise.
| j2bax wrote:
| What makes Boise a more readily available target for China?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Their medium range ICBMs, which they have greater inventory
| of, can reach the northwest.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Sorry, what decision are you saying is being made because
| China can nuke Boise more easily than other places? Are
| you envisioning a limited tactical strike by China that
| bombs half the country but leaves the Eastern seaboard
| militarily relevant?
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Rebuilding our microchip manufacturing base is critical part of
| US national defense. Why in the world would Donald Trump and
| Speaker Mike Johnson want to repeal the CHIPS act?
|
| https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-on-earth-does-trump-want-t...
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| China has a history of buying out its critics, and I do not
| doubt for a second that Donald Trump is for sale (notice how he
| changed his tune on TikTok?)
| wavefunction wrote:
| He changed his tune on electric vehicles after Musk started
| backing him.
| t-3 wrote:
| There's been many complaints about DEI requirements in the
| CHIPS Act. Given that DEI is a favorite right-wing talking
| point, amendment or repeal+replace might be likely, but I doubt
| it would be scrapped altogether.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| In my industry a big chunk of the new US grant money has
| local DEI certification requirements which requires a minimum
| percentage of minority / women ownership. As a solo dev it
| means I'll have to find a do-nothing stand in to
| 'subcontract' half of it out to. Then I'll have to pay who
| knows how much to get certified in each state. At this stage
| it's unclear if it would be worth perusing given the extra
| costs / hassles since there no guarantee I'll win the
| tenders. South Africa got too expensive to support with the
| BBBEE so I have seen this before.
|
| I'm seriously considering changing my gender to trans if
| Kamala wins which has the added bonus of making my company
| 100% female owned. If ya can't beat them, join them. All my
| hobbies are at home and I barely leave my apartment so it
| wouldn't even adversely affect my lifestyle.
|
| So I'm watching the election to see if I need to go buy a
| wig.
| jerlam wrote:
| It's associated with a member of the opposing party, so it must
| be opposed. Especially since it has a chance to be successful.
|
| Similar situation with the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)
| - it was opposed not on its merits, but because it was from the
| opposing side.
| nickff wrote:
| The Affordable Care Act came with a lot of baggage (as
| similar plans had been advocated for decades by various
| proponents), and President Obama was arrogant and dismissive
| of any need for Republican buy-in (telling them they could
| take a back seat). CHIPS seems much less divisive, though it
| seems stalled (at least based on recent statements by Intel
| and other CEOs).
| throw0101d wrote:
| > [...] _and President Obama was arrogant and dismissive of
| any need for Republican buy-in (telling them they could
| take a back seat)._
|
| That is not accurate:
|
| > _Not only were Republican senators deeply involved in the
| process up until its conclusion, but it 's a cinch that the
| ACA might have become law months earlier if the Democrats,
| hoping for a bipartisan bill, hadn't spent enormous time
| and effort wooing GOP senators -- only to find themselves
| gulled by false promises of cooperation. And unlike
| Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's semi-secret proceedings
| that involved only a handful of trusted colleagues,
| Obamacare, until the very end of the process, was open to
| public scrutiny._
|
| * https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/01/set-
| health...
| xenadu02 wrote:
| > The Affordable Care Act came with a lot of baggage
|
| Fake manufactured baggage. Even if you think the ACA was a
| terrible idea and bad policy the fact is Republicans
| opposed it entirely out of spite and worked to repeal parts
| of it for the same reason. It had nothing to do with a
| rational approach to public policy.
|
| The modern conservative movement has only two policies: no
| regulation (You Can't Tell Me What to Do Dad) and no taxes
| (Screw You, I Got Mine). Solving problems often requires
| regulation and money. Hence Republicans are incapable of
| solving most kinds of problems. A third leg, if one exists,
| is spitefully destroying anything that might demonstrate
| the government can do anything good or of value.
|
| Anti-free market policies? Excellent because it reduces
| regulation. Hurt American competitiveness? Who cares, as
| long as I don't have to pay taxes.
| knorthfield wrote:
| Trump didn't seem to disagree with the premise just the
| funding. His argument is that the US shouldn't be funding it.
| His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign chip
| manufacturers would have to build US based plants on their own
| dime.
| newprint wrote:
| Lol, yeah. They will not do that.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign
| chip manufacturers would have to build US based plants on
| their own dime._
|
| The counter-argument (FWIW):
|
| > _Tariffs are paid by the importer and not the exporter. The
| Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) claims that tariffs
| would not cause fabs to be built in the US, due to the cost
| of the factories, which can run from $18bn to $27bn._
|
| > _" No tariff amount will equal the costs of ripping apart
| these investments and efficient supply chains that have
| enabled current US industry leadership," SIA said._
|
| > _It added: "Moreover, chip tariffs will drive away
| manufacturing in advanced sectors that rely on semiconductor
| technology, such as aerospace, AI, robotics, next-generation
| networks, and autonomous vehicles. If the cost of key inputs
| like semiconductors is too high, tech manufacturers will
| relocate out of the US, costing jobs and further eroding US
| manufacturing and technological competitiveness."_
|
| * https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/trump-bashes-
| chip...
|
| Foreign chipmakers would not pay the tariff (contrary to what
| Trump thinks) but their US customers, and what incentive to
| the foreign chipmakers to make changes? They're getting the
| same money and it's not costing them a dime. And where else
| are US businesses going to go for the product?
| thehappypm wrote:
| Even if the exporters are not directly paying the tariffs,
| their chips will cost consumers more, reducing the demand.
| So no; they're not getting the same money.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Surely HN of all spaces would understand why giving free money
| to Intel is a massive waste?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-05 23:00 UTC)