antirez 4 days ago

The point here would be that after N years, US workers at the site would gain enough insights to replicate the processes with American companies? Because otherwise what's the point? Will TSMC allow that? Because to just have more internal "normal" jobs in the US is a small gain. There is a big ST site here in Catania, while they produce many chips most of the workers are blue collars.

  • smallerfish 4 days ago

    The point is redundancy in case China follows through on their threats to invade.

    • Pet_Ant 4 days ago

      This redundancy makes me worried that the US will view Taiwanese sovereignty as disposable. While the US has given much for the defence of Ukraine, it’s always been careful to make sure it’s not enough for Ukraine to win but only enough to make it expensive for Russia hopping they’ll reconsider. Russia has won there and I suspect they’ll joe be willing to let China have the islands now too.

      • phantomathkg 4 days ago

        Selling the secret sauce to US definitely make Taiwan disposable. But I also bet TSMC doesn't have a choice as whoever in power in US can also impose sanction/tariff or whatever they can to make TSMC to compile.

      • ekianjo 4 days ago

        > Taiwanese sovereignty as disposable

        Your are describing the statu quo as almost no country officially recognizes Taiwan

      • ForHackernews 4 days ago

        Short of nuclear weapons, I'm not sure what would allow Ukraine to "win". Even given all the hardware, Ukraine doesn't have the staff or experience to field a full NATO air wing and integrate it to fight according to NATO combined arms doctrine -- if that even WOULD produce a "win" (there is an untested assumption that a NATO-standard military could trounce Russia)

      • YetAnotherNick 4 days ago

        TSMC being 2-4 years ahead of Samsung/Intel has nothing to do whether US would be willing to go on a nuclear war and move the entire world decades if not millenias back. No one can go on a direct war with a country with nukes unless they are ready for mutually assured destruction.

      • cyanydeez 4 days ago

        the current regime will make choices based on what's profitable for the companies involved. It's unlikely that losing TSMC will improve profits for American companies, so having this redundancy is for short term applications.

        The business interests _are_ the political landscape today.

      • mytailorisrich 4 days ago

        > they’ll be willing to let China have the islands now too

        The islands are Chinese. The US back Taiwan as an anti-communist and anti-China (divide and conquer) tactic, including because its location. If the communists had lost the civil war, the mainland and Taiwan would all have remained under ROC control and it would have been interesting to see what the US would have come up with, instead (academic and thought experiment but interesting to imagine nonetheless).

        In Ukraine the US don't want to be dragged in a war against Russia and things have played well for them so far (really the US are the only winners so far).

    • ekianjo 4 days ago

      China has no needs to invade when they can do a very effective blockade without firing one shot.

    • WhereIsTheTruth 4 days ago

      "invade" = western propaganda

      The proper word is "reunite", as it was agreed with the US

      It sure gonna hurt the US Military industrial complex, no war = no money

      "1982 U.S.-PRC Joint Communiqué/Six Assurances

      As they negotiated establishment of diplomatic relations, the U.S. and PRC governments agreed to set aside the contentious issue of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. They took up that issue in the 1982 August 17 Communiqué, in which the PRC states “a fundamental policy of striving for peaceful reunification” with Taiwan, and the U.S. government states it “understands and appreciates” that policy. The U.S. government states in the 1982 communiqué that with those statements “in mind,” “it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan,” and “intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.” The U.S. government also declares “no intention” of “pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas,’” meaning the PRC and the ROC, “or ‘one China, one Taiwan.’”"

      https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12503/1

      • thworp 4 days ago

        > "invade" = western propaganda

        > The proper word is "reunite", as it was agreed with the US

        So the US and the PRC had some milquetoast diplomatic correspondence which did not include Taiwan. If the PRC now occupies Taiwan against the will of its people and population, presumably under fire from the Taiwanese army, it' just a "reunification"?

  • ForHackernews 4 days ago

    I know Intel has also opened a site nearby. Rumor is that many of the TSMC staff, having seen the lifestyle of American engineers in Arizona have started quietly applying with Intel.

  • vessenes 4 days ago

    No that’s not the goal — having the fabs onshore means US intelligence agencies and executive/legislative branch will have access. This is contra to Taiwan where the Taiwanese government oversees this access.

    Some people might like the sound of this, some might hate it, but day to day, there are significant portions of the US gov workforce who deal with counter espionage, corporate safety, and of course more publicized are the parts that enforce or “request” compliance with US goals, mandates, projects and so on.

    Once a factory is on shore, literally on your sovereign land, you have a lot more say.

    No different than wanting your banking managed on networks in your country, or your weapons manufactured in country.

    That said, generally states have competed for sites like this, and cities like San Jose, Austin and Portland have benefited from having large silicon industry economic bases. I can’t speculate if TSMC will benefit local industry that much, but I imagine it can’t hurt — it’s extra jobs, and probably a boost for suppliers that are convenient to the foundries.

spprashant 4 days ago

Can someone explain to me how they can keep the price of the chip production the same in the US compared to Taiwan?

Labour, especially specialized labour, is a lot more expensive in the US.

  • ajb257 4 days ago

    It didn’t say that it was the same price? Customers want them produced in the US, so will probs pay extra for it. Especially given that politically it’s a good look for them

    Also, the US govt has put in a lot of subsidies

  • dangus 4 days ago

    At this point it's not really a lot more expensive especially when factories are so heavily automated.

    The US has had semiconductor fabs for many years that are still operating. It just so happens that TSMC has the best process, but I don't think that has anything to do with labor costs.

  • zzzeek 4 days ago

    this likely helps:

    > Congress created a $52.7 billion semiconductor manufacturing and research subsidy program in 2022. Commerce convinced all five leading edge semiconductor firms to locate fabs in the United States as part of the program.

    > The TSMC award from Commerce also includes up to $5 billion in low-cost government loans.

    This is a big deal for the US Gov because chip manufacturing is ground zero for "staying competitive" against global competition, e.g. China, who is eating the US' lunch in most areas

[removed] 3 days ago
[deleted]
dr_dshiv 4 days ago

For some reason I’m concerned with being able to find the labor required to make this succeed. I really wish them the best.

ziofill 3 days ago

Few can imagine the complexity of spooling up a world-class fab. Marvel of engineering.

icf80 4 days ago

they are making wafers, those have to be sent to china to make the finals chips... in the case of a war this is not great