Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/the-u-s-semiconductor-sector-is-surging-we-need-the-workforce-to-match.19233/
        )

    [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] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

The U.S. Semiconductor Sector Is Surging. We Need the Workforce to Match.

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
Joe Biden Skywater Wafer.jpg


In 2021, at the virtual White House Chip Summit, President Biden held up a SkyWater silicon wafer and said, “This is infrastructure.” He’s right; semiconductor devices are used in everything from electronic control systems in vehicles to warfighters to smart phones. The 2022 Chips and Science Act is enabling investments to expand the nation’s capacity for semiconductor production. But more is needed to ensure healthy growth in this sector.

The U.S. semiconductor industry is poised to surge ahead. The Chips Act is already spurring new projects that will be vital to domestic manufacturing, supply chains, and national security. A thriving industry will make the U.S. the leader in AI and the technologies of tomorrow. To hit our full potential, we need the workforce to match.

For the U.S. semiconductor industry to succeed, we need approximately 250,000 workers in the next five-plus years. We need technicians, engineers, and administrative staff, but also workers in adjacent industries like construction, childcare, and others. There’s much we can do as a nation to address the challenges and create the opportunities associated with developing a skilled semiconductor workforce.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, posits that CHIPS Act investments will build a domestic semiconductor workforce by investing in manufacturing facilities, partnering with industry and education and training providers, supporting semiconductor education and training, and fueling research and development. We will need technicians to operate state-of-the-art equipment in fabs and engineers for R&D in semiconductor design and manufacturing. These workers will come from all levels of education – community colleges to doctorate programs. To develop the skilled and qualified workers needed to support this initiative, we must implement short- and long-term solutions, starting with science, technology, engineering, and math—STEM—education in K-12 through higher education, along with hands-on experience and on the job training. Advancing the workforce will happen through public-private partnerships among government, industry, and academia.

Under the Chips Act, the Department of Defense recently announced $238 million in funding to establish eight “Microelectronics Commons” regional innovation hubs across the country. Many of them are centered on universities like Purdue, which offers a degree program in semiconductors. These innovation hubs will create direct pathways to commercialization for U.S. microelectronics researchers and designers, known as “lab-to-fab.” The “Microelectronics Commons” enables core manufacturing facilities, including SkyWater, to partner with hubs and play a pivotal role in guiding the DOD’s efforts in microelectronics development, ensuring that cutting-edge technologies reach their full potential.

The Biden administration has also set up the Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs program, designating tech hubs in 31 states plus Puerto Rico. It aims to spur U.S. innovation, strengthen manufacturing, and create good-paying jobs in every region of the country. The statute authorizes $10 billion for the program over five years, investing in regions with the assets, resources, capacity, and potential to transform into globally competitive innovation centers in approximately 10 years.

To ensure the success of these investments we need a multifaceted development plan to grow the workforce. Beginning in the early stages of education (K-12) through postgraduate, we in the semiconductor industry can help to build awareness for high-tech jobs by visiting schools, supporting career days, and holding job fairs. We can offer immersive learning programs to provide hands-on training and experience by establishing internships, apprenticeships and rotational programs. The industry should also consider partnering with community colleges, technical schools, and universities to develop specialized programs and curricula tailored to semiconductor manufacturing. We can award scholarships to university and community-college students, which will also raise the chances students will complete their education.

Each year, 200,000 people retire from the military. Working with veterans has the dual benefit of giving us access to a diverse, highly skilled talent pool, and will help us fulfill our duty to assist with veterans’ transition into the civilian workforce. Industry associations can be leveraged to facilitate partnerships between government agencies, academic institutions, and the private sector.

Technology is advancing fast. Companies can help the domestic workforce keep up by providing opportunities for continuous learning such as online training, workshops, seminars, and conferences. We can provide mentorship programs and cross-train employees in multiple areas of semiconductor manufacturing. And in all these efforts, we need to foster more opportunities for women and encourage diversity and inclusion in the workforce. We’ll all gain from a broader variety of perspectives and experience.

Semiconductor manufacturing is a dynamic and challenging field, and we must invest in our workforce to remain competitive and innovative. By implementing these short- and long-term strategies, we can build a highly skilled workforce capable of meeting the industry’s critical demands.

 
View attachment 1549

In 2021, at the virtual White House Chip Summit, President Biden held up a SkyWater silicon wafer and said, “This is infrastructure.” He’s right; semiconductor devices are used in everything from electronic control systems in vehicles to warfighters to smart phones. The 2022 Chips and Science Act is enabling investments to expand the nation’s capacity for semiconductor production. But more is needed to ensure healthy growth in this sector.

The U.S. semiconductor industry is poised to surge ahead. The Chips Act is already spurring new projects that will be vital to domestic manufacturing, supply chains, and national security. A thriving industry will make the U.S. the leader in AI and the technologies of tomorrow. To hit our full potential, we need the workforce to match.

For the U.S. semiconductor industry to succeed, we need approximately 250,000 workers in the next five-plus years. We need technicians, engineers, and administrative staff, but also workers in adjacent industries like construction, childcare, and others. There’s much we can do as a nation to address the challenges and create the opportunities associated with developing a skilled semiconductor workforce.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, posits that CHIPS Act investments will build a domestic semiconductor workforce by investing in manufacturing facilities, partnering with industry and education and training providers, supporting semiconductor education and training, and fueling research and development. We will need technicians to operate state-of-the-art equipment in fabs and engineers for R&D in semiconductor design and manufacturing. These workers will come from all levels of education – community colleges to doctorate programs. To develop the skilled and qualified workers needed to support this initiative, we must implement short- and long-term solutions, starting with science, technology, engineering, and math—STEM—education in K-12 through higher education, along with hands-on experience and on the job training. Advancing the workforce will happen through public-private partnerships among government, industry, and academia.

Under the Chips Act, the Department of Defense recently announced $238 million in funding to establish eight “Microelectronics Commons” regional innovation hubs across the country. Many of them are centered on universities like Purdue, which offers a degree program in semiconductors. These innovation hubs will create direct pathways to commercialization for U.S. microelectronics researchers and designers, known as “lab-to-fab.” The “Microelectronics Commons” enables core manufacturing facilities, including SkyWater, to partner with hubs and play a pivotal role in guiding the DOD’s efforts in microelectronics development, ensuring that cutting-edge technologies reach their full potential.

The Biden administration has also set up the Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs program, designating tech hubs in 31 states plus Puerto Rico. It aims to spur U.S. innovation, strengthen manufacturing, and create good-paying jobs in every region of the country. The statute authorizes $10 billion for the program over five years, investing in regions with the assets, resources, capacity, and potential to transform into globally competitive innovation centers in approximately 10 years.

To ensure the success of these investments we need a multifaceted development plan to grow the workforce. Beginning in the early stages of education (K-12) through postgraduate, we in the semiconductor industry can help to build awareness for high-tech jobs by visiting schools, supporting career days, and holding job fairs. We can offer immersive learning programs to provide hands-on training and experience by establishing internships, apprenticeships and rotational programs. The industry should also consider partnering with community colleges, technical schools, and universities to develop specialized programs and curricula tailored to semiconductor manufacturing. We can award scholarships to university and community-college students, which will also raise the chances students will complete their education.

Each year, 200,000 people retire from the military. Working with veterans has the dual benefit of giving us access to a diverse, highly skilled talent pool, and will help us fulfill our duty to assist with veterans’ transition into the civilian workforce. Industry associations can be leveraged to facilitate partnerships between government agencies, academic institutions, and the private sector.

Technology is advancing fast. Companies can help the domestic workforce keep up by providing opportunities for continuous learning such as online training, workshops, seminars, and conferences. We can provide mentorship programs and cross-train employees in multiple areas of semiconductor manufacturing. And in all these efforts, we need to foster more opportunities for women and encourage diversity and inclusion in the workforce. We’ll all gain from a broader variety of perspectives and experience.

Semiconductor manufacturing is a dynamic and challenging field, and we must invest in our workforce to remain competitive and innovative. By implementing these short- and long-term strategies, we can build a highly skilled workforce capable of meeting the industry’s critical demands.

I found this data, which I think will helpful to understand the industry potential:
  • USA Semiconductors market is expected to achieve a revenue of US$70 billion in the year 2023.
  • Integrated Circuits Segment holds the largest market share, with a market volume of US$59.2 billion in 2023.
  • The USA Semiconductors market is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 5.65%, resulting in a market volume of US$87.5 billion by the year 2027.
  • In terms of global comparison, in China is projected to generate the highest revenue in the Semiconductors market, and estimated value of US$179.52 billion in 2023.
 
Universities are a scam. We grab self taught people and train them as apprentices.

In general I disagree. Our industry is filled with the smartest people in the world and most have PhDs or Masters Degrees. In fact, quite a few companies are based on PhD projects or University research. Personally, I would not be where I am today if not for a formal education, absolutely.

For some semiconductor jobs you may be right. For layout, most of the good layout people I worked with went to a tech school versus University. I also worked with some non degreed application engineers that were excellent. Some fab jobs do not require a degree but R&D certainly does.

Without Universities the semiconductor industry would not be what it is today, the most amazing force of nature man kind will ever experience.
 
Universities are a scam. We grab self taught people and train them as apprentices.
Depends on the program, depends on the student.

Software engineering can be mostly self taught but it would be very hard to self teach something like power systems engineering.
 
Universities are a scam. We grab self taught people and train them as apprentices.
Some certainly are. And it is incredible today how much and how quickly you can learn on line. There's certainly a huge dynamic range on the value for money scale from "-large" to "+large". In the UK we have the quite absurd situation where all degree students are charged annual tuition fees of UK£9000 pa. That's regardless of course and university ! So a Cambridge engineering degree costs the same as an arts degree at the much less well known University of Suffolk. Costs the same to the student - but less to provide for hte college - so higher profit margin to supply. Madness. Half of current degrees are probably a waste of time (as they used to say about advertising).

However, what you cannot easily do is scientific and engineering lab work (assuming this is still a serious component of technology degrees - it certainly should be).
 
However, what you cannot easily do is scientific and engineering lab work (assuming this is still a serious component of technology degrees - it certainly should be).

Yes exactly, a lot of the laboratory equipment and specialized software is very specialized and expensive in engineering programs. Sure you can learn CS online because so much is free and open. Most Mech E, Chem E, EE, ect programs could not possibly be learned online, at least not the lab components which are super important.
 
This observation comes from having hundreds of MSEEs from around the US working for me as voluntary interns. In parallel, I have brought in engineering wannabes (I advertise that). The students from the 2 year program outpace the MSEEs. The self taught engineers who know how to simplify and troubleshoot always win.

The students are worse now then they were 10 years ago. They get worse every year. The term is "tool jockey" and half of them believe Cadence invented the electron. The other half believes it was Synopsys.

The government should not be funding this scam after the second year of college. The middle class is being destroyed.
 
This observation comes from having hundreds of MSEEs from around the US working for me as voluntary interns. In parallel, I have brought in engineering wannabes (I advertise that). The students from the 2 year program outpace the MSEEs. The self taught engineers who know how to simplify and troubleshoot always win.

The students are worse now then they were 10 years ago. They get worse every year. The term is "tool jockey" and half of them believe Cadence invented the electron. The other half believes it was Synopsys.

The government should not be funding this scam after the second year of college. The middle class is being destroyed.
Voluntary = unpaid intern?
What kind of MSEE student is doing an unpaid internship? Most EEs from good programs are getting pretty lucrative internship offers.
 
working for me as voluntary interns.
If you are not paying interns, you are selecting the ones lucky enough to have other means of support. You probably are not seeing the ones who really have to hustle to support themselves. You would not have seen me. I supported myself from my 18th birthday, and my siblings when I graduated at age 21. My internships were paid - no choice.

If you want to observe the quality of the hard working ones, the experiment might require paying for them.
 
Depends on the program, depends on the student.
Agree.
Software engineering can be mostly self taught but it would be very hard to self teach something like power systems engineering.
Programming, yes, software engineering is much more difficult. Learning about data structures, memory management, message passing strategies, operating system fundamentals and operations, storage systems theories, etc. on your own will be daunting to most people who not formally trained.
 
The self taught engineers who know how to simplify and troubleshoot always win.
I think the difference, Cliff, is that the self-taught people are part of the population who are passionate about a field, and learn because they want to, and need to learn everything they can because it's the only way to satisfy their passion. For many engineering students, school is like a mandatory job you do for four to nine years so you can have a successful career. For the passionate ones, they're not happy unless they are at the top of the knowledge pyramid.

As someone who was mostly self-taught in several aspects of computer science and computer engineering, the way I learned these fields was by reading huge piles of academic papers, and most of them (less now than then) came out of universities. So while I was not a particularly good student (to say the least), I owe my professional success to university research and the professors and students who publish the papers. Note that in the 1970s-1990s I really had huge piles of printed papers and journals. Now the internet makes things so much easier, as does Coursera and other online education courses. Corporate-sourced papers are more numerous now than they were then, and they were and still are important too, but it was always the university papers that taught me the nitty-gritty of computer engineering.
The students are worse now then they were 10 years ago.
I'm hearing similar complaints from my former colleagues who are hiring managers, looking for computer science graduates. Except for you, I haven't heard it at all about EEs. I also haven't heard complaints about RCG physicists, mathematicians, or anyone in the physical sciences.
 
Last edited:
In general I disagree. Our industry is filled with the smartest people in the world and most have PhDs or Masters Degrees. In fact, quite a few companies are based on PhD projects or University research. Personally, I would not be where I am today if not for a formal education, absolutely.

For some semiconductor jobs you may be right. For layout, most of the good layout people I worked with went to a tech school versus University. I also worked with some non degreed application engineers that were excellent. Some fab jobs do not require a degree but R&D certainly does.

Without Universities the semiconductor industry would not be what it is today, the most amazing force of nature man kind will ever experience.

It's the direction, and mindfulness of research work. Not all discoveries are accidental, and not every boring "Characterisation of Substance A" Ph.D. is useless, but the majority of academic work today is just to get credentials the fastest way, and is written utterly without any deep thought to it.

It's absolutely true that both very boring research, and very deep, and hard research is mostly doable by public funding only, but it's also absolutely true that both are a minor portion in the sea of generic works without the goal of adding adding to the scientific field.
 
Last edited:
I think the difference, Cliff, is that the self-taught people are part of the population who are passionate about a field, and learn because they want to, and need to learn everything they can because it's the only way to satisfy their passion. For many engineering students, school is like a mandatory job you do for four to nine years so you can have a successful career.

Bingo!

reading huge piles of academic papers, and most of them (less now than then) came out of universities.
Most of the MSEEs can't handle high school physics questions. This isn't speculation. This is what I resort to.

How a transistor works... Do I need to dig up a university paper?
How a cascode works.. Do I need to dig up a university paper?
How to layout 2 consecutive logic cells made up of FETs... Do I need to dig up a university paper

Other:
Most cannot make testbenches (analog)
Most make sloppy schematics, proving that they don't care about understanding the circuit flow.

I can go on and on.

You would not have seen me. I supported myself from my 18th birthday

Answer: Part time apprentice.

the experiment might require paying for them

Never! They should be paying us. Semiconductor boot camp.

Most Mech E, Chem E, EE, ect programs could not possibly be learned online, at least not the lab components which are super important.

Well... we have the EDA tools and example circuits, so I guess you can say we teach the labs... and classes. But the each college course is taught in 1 hour. It is unbelievable how lousy some of these professors are.

What kind of MSEE student is doing an unpaid internship?
2 kinds.

1) Those who realize that they know nothing and want to combine their $60,000 investment with some knowledge.

2) Those who just want my signature who want to show employers that they worked at my company as an intern and just plan on showing up without attempting to CREATE anything. They typically get fired from the voluntary job.... yes, I fire volunteers.

To be fair, there are universities better than the one we are across the street from. For example, we have only had good experiences from MSEEs who went to NCSU. I asked a few of them this summer who worked at my company why they are so good. They told me that NCSU makes them work their asses off. I think that was only part of it. I think the culture there seems to be higher work ethic. It was very difficult to pull them away from the terminals. As Mr. Blue said, it comes down to passion. Throwing taxpayer $$$ at them is not the way to go. Apprenticeship is.
 
I think the difference, Cliff, is that the self-taught people are part of the population who are passionate about a field, and learn because they want to, and need to learn everything they can because it's the only way to satisfy their passion. For many engineering students, school is like a mandatory job you do for four to nine years so you can have a successful career.

An underappreciated argument, especially in Taiwan. The number of vastly overqualified, based on credentials, workers is vast. I've seen secretaries, and receptionists with PhDs.

And the practice of bribing recruiters at big companies to get a job exists.

Semi is the only industry left in TW with relatively large money for people.

And even if you are a very talented physicist, you will still forget much of physics after a few years on a b-s job.

A genuine shortage of semi workers does not exist in Taiwan, it's just salary standards creeping up because more, and more Taiwanese are aware that a fab job will pay 3 times more for a fresh out of institute job seeker abroad.
 
An underappreciated argument, especially in Taiwan. The number of vastly overqualified, based on credentials, workers is vast. I've seen secretaries, and receptionists with PhDs.

And the practice of bribing recruiters at big companies to get a job exists.

Semi is the only industry left in TW with relatively large money for people.

And even if you are a very talented physicist, you will still forget much of physics after a few years on a b-s job.

A genuine shortage of semi workers does not exist in Taiwan, it's just salary standards creeping up because more, and more Taiwanese are aware that a fab job will pay 3 times more for a fresh out of institute job seeker abroad.

We have secretaries and receptionists with PhDs in Social Engineering
 
To be fair, there are universities better than the one we are across the street from. For example, we have only had good experiences from MSEEs who went to NCSU. I asked a few of them this summer who worked at my company why they are so good. They told me that NCSU makes them work their asses off. I think that was only part of it. I think the culture there seems to be higher work ethic. It was very difficult to pull them away from the terminals. As Mr. Blue said, it comes down to passion. Throwing taxpayer $$$ at them is not the way to go. Apprenticeship is.
As universities have expanded enrollment there is a wide and growing gap between schools with strong engineering programs and what have effectively become international student diploma mills. I think it's important to be selective about the programs you recruit from - you won't have these issues recruiting from T20 engineering schools, but it will cost you more (NCSU is I think top 30, so that explains why you have less issues with them). These students already have a strong brand name on their resumes based on the school they went to and don't need to prove anything by doing an unpaid internship with you since they will already be getting paid internship offers at Fortune 500 companies.

It sounds like you are taking more of a value investing approach to talent, which is also a completely valid strategy. But you are going to have to sift through a lot of duds with that approach.
 
It sounds like you are taking more of a value investing approach to talent, which is also a completely valid strategy. But you are going to have to sift through a lot of duds with that approach.
Let's just say we sift through to find gems. Most of the gems are found from the school of hard knocks. All that matters is IQ, passion, and discipline. Since we can teach engineering far better than the programs at school, we end up with gems. We do get MSEEs from "good" schools as well, and we go over what they learn and how they are taught. Sorry, most of the schools are as you said... "international student diploma mills".

Also, most of the students take the easier engineering classes to receive a 4.0. We don't look at the GPA. We look at the classes they took. This shows the students who were seeking knowledge. That is what we look for. That is how we find gems.
 
Let's hope AI saves the day and frees up some resources. I have little hope for the world to staff all of the fabs that have been announced unless we further automate. Getting customers for those fabs is another story completely.
 
I had to learn on the fly and learned it's the ability to read, ask questions and how to reach out with a phone call. I have done trouble shooting where teams of engineers have failed, many, many times. It's the person, but a good education can speed progress up considerably. My knowledge now is mostly obsolete since I trade/invest in stocks, but I do read about three and a half hours a day in science, technology and finance. When I run into relevant information, I post it on SemiWiki and this is also where I ask questions. SemiWiki is one of my most valuable resources since I no longer work in technical fields. I do hold a general, electrical and communications contractor's licenses in California.
 
Back
Top