11 ms·

It’s like: People: We want stuff cheaply, immediately and in immense volume! Production: Moves to Asia People: We want jobs! Production: Opens a new factory

It’s like: People: We want stuff cheaply, immediately and in immense volume! Production: Moves to Asia People: We want jobs! Production: Opens a new factory in the USA People: We don’t want to work that much! Production: increases pay, which increases product cost People: this is too expensive. Can we buy from overseas cheaply instead? Production: Closes USA factory, moves back to Asia. People: we want jobs…

avs733 5y ago
or... "we want reasonable jobs that allow us to have a life and do not functionally make us the property of a corporate entity that does not share sufficient amounts of the gains of our labor with us and labels requests to be treated with respect as unintelligible" States/those with power claiming things are 'unintelligible' when in fact they just don't like them or want to treat them as valid is a classic form of control.
- bravo22 5y ago
  The power they have over the "corporate" entity is a function of what they have to offer relative to everyone else. A few decades ago when US corps made everything and the rest of the world bought them they could demand high paying union jobs and get them. The cost of this was subsidized by buyers from around the world and cheap input material and energy corps could get due to US's geopolitical position. That ship has sailed. Now they have to be more in line with the rest of the world. What the "corporation" can offer and survive or stay ahead of the pack is a function of choices available to it. Which are different now than decades ago. This myth that Americans can demand better things that the rest of the world can't needs to die. If they want to work less, great! They can. They need to become more efficient and produce more goods with less labor. Otherwise people in other countries will not want to trade with them. That is reflected to the American worker through the set of jobs and work conditions available to them.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Workers have to compete with everyone else in the world. If a company employs American workers who demand high wages to do the same work that international workers do for less pay that company will fail. The economy is a competition, companies can't just give away money.
  - avs733 5y ago
    > The economy is a competition, companies can't just give away money. And this article makes that point very salient, as does antiunion drives at many companies. Say it costs me X to run a PR campaign about lazy workers or hire an antiunion consulting firm. It might cost me Y to raise pay, hire more workers, and/or improve working conditions. If X is less than Y and achieves the same effect - I do X, if Y is less, I do Y. Employees are allowed to make employers compete as well. This is HN, like the home of the switch companies regularly in silicon valley & silicon valley was created because no non-competes. In a flush labor market, employees compete for jobs from companies. In a tight labor market companies might have to compete (and treating workers better/paying more is a form of competing). If you don't want to compete by paying more, you can compete by accepting lower quality - just like if I go buy a product from a company or its competitors. The strident defenses of the poor companies having to compete for labor being unfair is just such a strange narrative to me but one that has weaseled its way into a lot of the American subconscious. If TSMC did know enough about American semiconductor employee work culture before investing $12 Billion in a new factory that they are surprised by this that's on them. If we accept your claim about American workers demanding higher wages than international workers for the same effort, then TSMC certainly knew that going in. TMSC isn't some innocent and naïve child...but they did build near Intel's castle hoping (it seems) to extract intellectual capital. A lot of those ex Intel-ers leave because of burnout and may have a shorter tolerance for BS than TSMC. TSMC is one of the top 10 employers in Taiwan, maybe that was something they didn't consider the influence of that in their work culture enough? My suspicion is that this is an effectively planted article as part of a drive for better incentives by TSMC. This stinks of Foxconn and Wisconsin.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      The engineers at this TSMC plant will get what they want. TSMC knows that which is why they wrote this article. The people who are really fucked are the blue collar workers whose job is moving to a sweatshop in south east asia.
    - bllguo 5y ago
      except if it were solely up to TSMC this fab would not even exist. this whole project is a product of US pressure on Taiwan, as they would have much more leverage over the US if they kept their semiconductor expertise to themselves. let's not pretend the US would be so gung-ho if it weren't for TSMC, Taiwan provides little value otherwise
Veen 5y ago
One factor you are missing in that analysis: TSMC is very profitable—about $5 billion per quarter. Better working conditions don't have to mean more expensive products; it could instead mean reduced profits. https://focustaiwan.tw/business/202110140010 https://focustaiwan.tw/business/202110140010
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bin_bash 5y ago
  does that profit take into account the cost of building new fabs?
  - MR4D 5y ago
    That’s cash flow. Profit has all sorts of accounting aspects such as depreciation (which, for a massive chip plant must be enormous).
  - 0xB31B1B 5y ago
    yes it does, TSMC has immense profits, and their profits are growing 30% YoY
- CivBase 5y ago
  Where do those profits go? Presumably TSMC doesn't just sit on it. Surely they either invest it back into their business to stay competitive or deal it out as compensation.
  - defterGoose 5y ago
    That's a very charitable view of capitalism-driven wealth concentration.
    - CivBase 5y ago
      How so? The rich don't benefit from profits being tied up in a business account. If they want that money, they either have to receive it as immediate compensation or invest it in hopes of receiving even greater compensation in the future.
q1w2 5y ago
"People" in each line are different groups of people. ...but the underlying lesson is correct - you cannot just listen to the loudest group. You have to enact policies that are based on an educated understanding of economics.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  I suppose even if there were different groups (say, one free trade group, another protectionist group), the people individually could have coherent opinions. It would then go wrong when the elected representatives try to pander to both groups simultaneously.
HPsquared 5y ago
People want to have their cake and eat it too.
- adventured 5y ago
  No you can reasonably have high wages, decent profits, and high output. Big tech in the US already does that exceptionally well. There's no reason TSMC can't do it, other than they don't want to sacrifice some profit. TSMC is upset because of the lack of enough slave labor in Arizona.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  Seems like companies want that as well. Fortunately for them, they actually get it (if their stock price is any indication).
bobthechef 5y ago
There might be a bit of that. 12 hour days are not unheard of in other parts of the country. Doctors in the ER can work even longer shifts (though obviously the stakes are incommensurate; still, I would contest the soundness of having tired doctors performing medical procedures). But there's also the question of whether it is truly necessary. Will hiring more workers to cover more shifts really increase production costs that much? If you're competing with cheap labor, possibly slave labor, then you have to look to other ways to push back, like fast tracking immigration of talent from places like Taiwan, imposing tariffs on imports from countries with cheap labor, investing in automation to reduce production time and costs, etc. Sometimes there isn't much you can do, but generally speaking, while private business is a good thing, it is also true that private business cannot contradict the common good. The idea that you can simply do whatever you want because you're private is simply nonsense.
MR4D 5y ago
Govt: import taxes starting in 3, 2 . . .
phkahler 5y ago
>> It’s like: That's cute, but not what actually happened. It started with: Company: We want more profit Production: Moved to Asia Other Companies: We can't compete any more Other Production: Moved to Asia Companies: Oh crap, we need production back in the US (for various reasons) Production: Oh shit that's right, we moved because it cost less with no labor or environmental protections and we could work the shit out of people. Companies: Let's call it a "Culture Clash".
- flyinglizard 5y ago
  In most markets, profit is not elastic, costs are. Meaning that sooner or later the savings will get to the end customer. Don’t believe me? See what changed during the last two decades of globalization, product cost and availability or profit margins.
- breezeTrowel 5y ago
  Going by the article, it seems a large part of the "culture clash" is TSMC's insistence on three hours of meetings each day and using outdated software that was designed back in 1987(!). While workers in Taiwan used to work 12 hour days, time worked is not a good indicator of productivity and I'm willing to bet that TSMC's massive profitability meant there wasn't much incentive to make the work process more efficient. Honestly, I'm surprised so much hands-on work is needed when we're talking about a semiconductor company. One would think a lot of the fine-tuning work, which seems to be what requires a lot of the labor, could be easily automated with current technology.
  - sitkack 5y ago
    Any company that runs down worker resources by running them out of spec is not sustainable and indicative of a lack of mature management. You wouldn't run your physical machinery outside of its operating area, so don't do it to your workforce. Automate. Fabs are the knife edge of technology, literally building the components that go into all other forms of automation, yet they are reliant on primate and medieval era organizational structures and processes?
long_time_gone 5y ago
Note that in this telling of the story "People" are the antagonist and the $600B company is the protagonist.
JohnWhigham 5y ago
Electronics/anything that uses ICs should never have been as cheap as they are now. NAFTA has been a fucking disaster; we're addicted to cheap shit we don't need, and it's near-impossible to break. It affects every aspect of society.
- Tostino 5y ago
  If it is possible to produce them in a way that doesn't damage the environment and gives the workers a good life, why shouldn't we want cheap ICs?
downrightmike 5y ago
Hire more people have several shifts. Increasing pay when you're maxing people out already.

avs733 5y ago

or... "we want reasonable jobs that allow us to have a life and do not functionally make us the property of a corporate entity that does not share sufficient amounts of the gains of our labor with us and labels requests to be treated with respect as unintelligible" States/those with power claiming things are 'unintelligible' when in fact they just don't like them or want to treat them as valid is a classic form of control.

bravo22 5y ago
The power they have over the "corporate" entity is a function of what they have to offer relative to everyone else. A few decades ago when US corps made everything and the rest of the world bought them they could demand high paying union jobs and get them. The cost of this was subsidized by buyers from around the world and cheap input material and energy corps could get due to US's geopolitical position. That ship has sailed. Now they have to be more in line with the rest of the world. What the "corporation" can offer and survive or stay ahead of the pack is a function of choices available to it. Which are different now than decades ago. This myth that Americans can demand better things that the rest of the world can't needs to die. If they want to work less, great! They can. They need to become more efficient and produce more goods with less labor. Otherwise people in other countries will not want to trade with them. That is reflected to the American worker through the set of jobs and work conditions available to them.
colinmhayes 5y ago
Workers have to compete with everyone else in the world. If a company employs American workers who demand high wages to do the same work that international workers do for less pay that company will fail. The economy is a competition, companies can't just give away money.
- avs733 5y ago
  > The economy is a competition, companies can't just give away money. And this article makes that point very salient, as does antiunion drives at many companies. Say it costs me X to run a PR campaign about lazy workers or hire an antiunion consulting firm. It might cost me Y to raise pay, hire more workers, and/or improve working conditions. If X is less than Y and achieves the same effect - I do X, if Y is less, I do Y. Employees are allowed to make employers compete as well. This is HN, like the home of the switch companies regularly in silicon valley & silicon valley was created because no non-competes. In a flush labor market, employees compete for jobs from companies. In a tight labor market companies might have to compete (and treating workers better/paying more is a form of competing). If you don't want to compete by paying more, you can compete by accepting lower quality - just like if I go buy a product from a company or its competitors. The strident defenses of the poor companies having to compete for labor being unfair is just such a strange narrative to me but one that has weaseled its way into a lot of the American subconscious. If TSMC did know enough about American semiconductor employee work culture before investing $12 Billion in a new factory that they are surprised by this that's on them. If we accept your claim about American workers demanding higher wages than international workers for the same effort, then TSMC certainly knew that going in. TMSC isn't some innocent and naïve child...but they did build near Intel's castle hoping (it seems) to extract intellectual capital. A lot of those ex Intel-ers leave because of burnout and may have a shorter tolerance for BS than TSMC. TSMC is one of the top 10 employers in Taiwan, maybe that was something they didn't consider the influence of that in their work culture enough? My suspicion is that this is an effectively planted article as part of a drive for better incentives by TSMC. This stinks of Foxconn and Wisconsin.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    The engineers at this TSMC plant will get what they want. TSMC knows that which is why they wrote this article. The people who are really fucked are the blue collar workers whose job is moving to a sweatshop in south east asia.
  - bllguo 5y ago
    except if it were solely up to TSMC this fab would not even exist. this whole project is a product of US pressure on Taiwan, as they would have much more leverage over the US if they kept their semiconductor expertise to themselves. let's not pretend the US would be so gung-ho if it weren't for TSMC, Taiwan provides little value otherwise

Veen 5y ago

One factor you are missing in that analysis: TSMC is very profitable—about $5 billion per quarter. Better working conditions don't have to mean more expensive products; it could instead mean reduced profits. https://focustaiwan.tw/business/202110140010 https://focustaiwan.tw/business/202110140010

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bin_bash 5y ago
does that profit take into account the cost of building new fabs?
- MR4D 5y ago
  That’s cash flow. Profit has all sorts of accounting aspects such as depreciation (which, for a massive chip plant must be enormous).
- 0xB31B1B 5y ago
  yes it does, TSMC has immense profits, and their profits are growing 30% YoY
CivBase 5y ago
Where do those profits go? Presumably TSMC doesn't just sit on it. Surely they either invest it back into their business to stay competitive or deal it out as compensation.
- defterGoose 5y ago
  That's a very charitable view of capitalism-driven wealth concentration.
  - CivBase 5y ago
    How so? The rich don't benefit from profits being tied up in a business account. If they want that money, they either have to receive it as immediate compensation or invest it in hopes of receiving even greater compensation in the future.

q1w2 5y ago

"People" in each line are different groups of people. ...but the underlying lesson is correct - you cannot just listen to the loudest group. You have to enact policies that are based on an educated understanding of economics.

HPsquared 5y ago
I suppose even if there were different groups (say, one free trade group, another protectionist group), the people individually could have coherent opinions. It would then go wrong when the elected representatives try to pander to both groups simultaneously.

HPsquared 5y ago

People want to have their cake and eat it too.

adventured 5y ago
No you can reasonably have high wages, decent profits, and high output. Big tech in the US already does that exceptionally well. There's no reason TSMC can't do it, other than they don't want to sacrifice some profit. TSMC is upset because of the lack of enough slave labor in Arizona.
long_time_gone 5y ago
Seems like companies want that as well. Fortunately for them, they actually get it (if their stock price is any indication).

bobthechef 5y ago

There might be a bit of that. 12 hour days are not unheard of in other parts of the country. Doctors in the ER can work even longer shifts (though obviously the stakes are incommensurate; still, I would contest the soundness of having tired doctors performing medical procedures). But there's also the question of whether it is truly necessary. Will hiring more workers to cover more shifts really increase production costs that much? If you're competing with cheap labor, possibly slave labor, then you have to look to other ways to push back, like fast tracking immigration of talent from places like Taiwan, imposing tariffs on imports from countries with cheap labor, investing in automation to reduce production time and costs, etc. Sometimes there isn't much you can do, but generally speaking, while private business is a good thing, it is also true that private business cannot contradict the common good. The idea that you can simply do whatever you want because you're private is simply nonsense.

MR4D 5y ago

Govt: import taxes starting in 3, 2 . . .

phkahler 5y ago

>> It’s like: That's cute, but not what actually happened. It started with: Company: We want more profit Production: Moved to Asia Other Companies: We can't compete any more Other Production: Moved to Asia Companies: Oh crap, we need production back in the US (for various reasons) Production: Oh shit that's right, we moved because it cost less with no labor or environmental protections and we could work the shit out of people. Companies: Let's call it a "Culture Clash".

flyinglizard 5y ago
In most markets, profit is not elastic, costs are. Meaning that sooner or later the savings will get to the end customer. Don’t believe me? See what changed during the last two decades of globalization, product cost and availability or profit margins.
breezeTrowel 5y ago
Going by the article, it seems a large part of the "culture clash" is TSMC's insistence on three hours of meetings each day and using outdated software that was designed back in 1987(!). While workers in Taiwan used to work 12 hour days, time worked is not a good indicator of productivity and I'm willing to bet that TSMC's massive profitability meant there wasn't much incentive to make the work process more efficient. Honestly, I'm surprised so much hands-on work is needed when we're talking about a semiconductor company. One would think a lot of the fine-tuning work, which seems to be what requires a lot of the labor, could be easily automated with current technology.
- sitkack 5y ago
  Any company that runs down worker resources by running them out of spec is not sustainable and indicative of a lack of mature management. You wouldn't run your physical machinery outside of its operating area, so don't do it to your workforce. Automate. Fabs are the knife edge of technology, literally building the components that go into all other forms of automation, yet they are reliant on primate and medieval era organizational structures and processes?

long_time_gone 5y ago

Note that in this telling of the story "People" are the antagonist and the $600B company is the protagonist.

JohnWhigham 5y ago

Electronics/anything that uses ICs should never have been as cheap as they are now. NAFTA has been a fucking disaster; we're addicted to cheap shit we don't need, and it's near-impossible to break. It affects every aspect of society.

Tostino 5y ago
If it is possible to produce them in a way that doesn't damage the environment and gives the workers a good life, why shouldn't we want cheap ICs?

downrightmike 5y ago

Hire more people have several shifts. Increasing pay when you're maxing people out already.