So they got all that money from Uncle Sam’s CHIPS Act only to lay off 10,000 employees and make themselves “lean”. Govt funded unemployment.

  • @UnderpantsWeevil
    link
    English
    434 months ago

    So what I’m getting here is that the CEO and or the board decided to invest in something that is losing a ton of money

    Intel has an enormous technical debt that they’re finally struggling to pay back after they hit a brick wall with their 7nm Titanium chipset.

    It isn’t that this is wasteful spending so much as it is big upfront costs for future productive development.

    That said, the fact that this work has to be government subsidized in order to be done raises the question of why this business is private at all.

    • @SocialMediaRefugee
      link
      English
      -64 months ago

      I’m not sure I want the gov and huge amounts of my tax dollars going to operate federal gov chip fab plants. On the other hand I get your point that it is so heavily subsidized it is practically a de facto situation anyway.

      • @UnderpantsWeevil
        link
        English
        224 months ago

        I’m not sure I want the gov and huge amounts of my tax dollars going to operate federal gov chip fab plants.

        That is ultimately what the subsidies amount to.

        On the other hand I get your point that it is so heavily subsidized it is practically a de facto situation anyway.

        I think the question isn’t “Do I want my tax dollars going to X?” (because they’re going there whether you want it to or not - semiconductors are an essential industry in a modern post-industrial nation). The question is how you want the business to operate. As a for-profit venture focused on returning the maximum profit to shareholders over the smallest time frame? Or as a public utility, focused on generating a sufficient quota of useful products for a fixed unit cost?

        Part of the problem with the Western/Americanized economic system is that the second kind of enterprise is increasingly difficult to find. And where it does exist (the USPS, the state university system, the federal reserve, the SEC/FAA/EPA) there’s been so much privatization and regulatory capture that these institutions appear incapable of fulfilling their mandates.

        But constantly diverting responsibility for fixing the problem by saying “I don’t want my tax dollars involved in this failed thing” doesn’t get us any closer to a solution. At some point, the public (and by extension the state bureaucracy) has to engage with our corrupt and failing economic cornerstones. Otherwise, we just become beholden to the nations we import from.

        “Let Saudi-ARAMCO handle it” isn’t a solution I find particularly appetizing, either.

        • @paddirn
          link
          English
          24 months ago

          Doesn’t the US have semiconductor chip sanctions in place on China, specifically because it’s a national security concern? If semiconductors are that big of a deal that we need to sanction China over them… maybe they should be nationalized.

          • @UnderpantsWeevil
            link
            English
            14 months ago

            Doesn’t the US have semiconductor chip sanctions in place on China

            Taiwanese Semiconductor is the global industry leader, and half of their output is sold to China. Korea and Japan are also major exporters. The Chinese manufacturers don’t care about losing access to Intel chips, when they’re a generation behind the curve anyway.

            maybe they should be nationalized.

            Wall Street would flip its lid if the US tried to nationalize Intel.