jms_embedded
Active member
Interesting article predicting a culture clash in its Arizona fab-under-construction. Seems a bit of a premature statement to me, but it was an interesting read nevertheless.
Array ( [content] => [params] => Array ( [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/eetimes-tsmcs-arizona-culture-clash.15286/ ) [addOns] => Array ( [DL6/MLTP] => 13 [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070 [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200 [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010 [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010 [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010 [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970 [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570 [XF] => 2021270 [XFI] => 1050270 ) [wordpress] => /var/www/html )
The first movie Obama's production company picked up, "American Factory"...
That's your projection I hate all US politicians equally, and last I checked American partisanship is the only reason TSMC is bothering with AZ at all.Partisan bickering isn't really on-topic here.
The article is very realistic but one thing is missing in it: Why is TSMC investing is US? Is it money? Is it market expansion? Is it resource augmentation? Or is the US guarding Taiwan against China? Or the fact that in case China does enter Taiwan where is TSMC without external fab capacity? Security is more important than money, the US army can vouch for that.Interesting article predicting a culture clash in its Arizona fab-under-construction. Seems a bit of a premature statement to me, but it was an interesting read nevertheless.
Because fabs don't just hire engineers and software developers. Most of the labor in the construction and operation of a fab is going to be construction workers, line workers, technicians, and maintenance people. It's also not that Americans are not willing to work hard, there is a different standard in Asian factories.The article is excessively exaggerating, trying to paint a picture that Americans are lazy and unwilling to work hard. Nothing can be further from the truth. I have not met a single person in my 30 yrs in the tech industry who insist (or is able to) just working 9-5 and 5 days a week, unless she/he is at the bottom of the ladder and has zero aspiration and is thus required to punch a clock time stamp everyday going in and out the building. In reality, it's common working 50, 60 or more hours a week if that person has just a tiny bit of ambition for getting ahead or a better pay. If an engineer insisting on 40 hours week with a rigid schedule as described in the article, I am not sure she/he is even employable in today's environment, frankly. Why you would ever want to hire such a person?