Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Technology

Biden's Semiconductor Plan Flexes the Power of the Federal Government (nytimes.com) 139

Semiconductor manufacturers seeking a slice of nearly $40 billion in new federal subsidies will need to ensure affordable child care for their workers, limit stock buybacks and share certain excess profits with the government, the Biden administration will announce on Tuesday. From a report: The new requirements represent an aggressive attempt by the federal government to bend the behavior of corporate America to accomplish its economic and national security objectives. As the Biden administration makes the nation's first big foray into industrial policy in decades, officials are also using the opportunity to advance policies championed by liberals that seek to empower workers. While the moves would advance some of the left-behind portions of the president's agenda, they could also set a fraught precedent for attaching policy strings to federal funding.

Last year, a bipartisan group of lawmakers passed the CHIPS Act, which devoted $52 billion to expanding U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and research, in hopes of making the nation less reliant on foreign suppliers for critical chips that power computers, household appliances, cars and more. The prospect of accessing those funds has already enticed domestic and foreign-owned chip makers to announce plans for or begin construction on new projects in Arizona, Texas, Ohio, New York and other states. On Tuesday, the Commerce Department will release its application for manufacturers seeking funds under the law. It will include a variety of requirements that go far beyond simply encouraging semiconductor production.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Biden's Semiconductor Plan Flexes the Power of the Federal Government

Comments Filter:
  • Because of this big government hand out. At the least maybe Intel can stay alive with the money for nothing.
    • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @11:51AM (#63330081) Journal

      If you are critical of the plan, what's the alternative? Letting China bully-hog the chip market didn't work out well.

      To me, spreading the manufacturing among multiple democracies in different corners of the world would be a better option, but it's harder to control what other countries do than your own.

      • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @01:34PM (#63330457) Homepage Journal

        China is a country that we're *literally* preparing to go to war with. That doesn't mean we want a war; I certainly don't want a war with China, but it's militarily prudent to be ready. If that's true, does it make sense for our economy to be so *critically* dependent upon China? If China steps up to support Russia in Ukraine, as it is reportedly considering doing, we may see the emergence of a new Iron Curtain, falling straight across our supply chains.

        Even if you take war off the table, China is increasingly looking unstable, economically, politically, and socially.

        * China is a major driver of world economic growth, but its economy is a house of cards propped up by a real estate bubble of terrifying size.
        * China is a society predicated upon double digit annual economic growth that is falling into the middle income trap, where workers have become too expensive for cheap jobs but aren't productive enough [wikipedia.org] to command higher salaries.
        * China is facing a developing demographic crisis with an aging population, a uniquely skewed sex distribution [wikimedia.org] and a falling fertility rate [theconversation.com] currently just over half of what is needed to maintain a stable population.

        It's going to be hard for China to fulfill its self-appointed destiny of global leadership. And it's got an authoritarian regime that's not going to take disappointment lying down when there's external scapegoats. That's one hell of a powder keg to be chained to.

      • voting shares. Lots of them. Then vote in stockholder meetings to bring the factories here.

        Or just build public chip foundries. Or make a credible threat to do that. See how fast they're falling over themselves to build factories here then.

        There's lots of alternatives to what we've been doing. [time.com] You just need to think outside the (very narrow) window given to you by corporate media. Think for yourself again. It's fun.
        • by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @03:04PM (#63330833) Homepage

          voting shares. Lots of them. Then vote in stockholder meetings to bring the factories here.
          Or just build public chip foundries.

          Are you implying the government should literally own the means of production? There's an *ism for that, and I don't think it goes over well with most people in this country.

          • I'm saying you and I should own it. Stop looking to government for leadership. They're elected representatives. Employees, not leaders.

            Again, you're thinking is constrained. You still think of gov't as something that should rule over you instead of as a tool for getting things done the free market can't or won't.
            • Most people don't own stock directly. Usually it's indirectly via a mutal fund, retirement plan, etc. Even those poorer than the middle class don't even have that. There's so very little direct control over the company, not even with annual votes. The most we get is "approve/disapprove these 5 pre-selected board member candidates".

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • So the government shouldn't own the means of production, but the workers should instead? ;)

        • Generally, the US government can't do this. Despite the existence of capitalist "stock", this is technically socialism if done by a democracy (the people control the means of production). However there have been exceptions - the "bail out" of GM for instance. So really the biggest control the federal government has over corporations is the carrot - we give you this money with these conditions. This is not new, this has been a practice for quite some time and practiced by both Democratic and Republican p

    • All the handouts were a result of the shortage caused by Covid. But the shortage was a one-time black swan event.

      My prediction: Five years from now there will be a massive glut in semiconductors.

      • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        > caused by Covid. But the shortage was a one-time black swan event.

        I'm not sure about that because cold-war-like tensions are building up. China is getting bigger and braver, making them less hesitant to use trade restrictions as a political and/or economic weapon.

        Just like it's not good to depend on oil from volatile nations, it's not good to depend on goods from a hostile nation. We'll probably still trade chips with them, but hopefully try to make sure they don't corner the market for anything critic

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aldousd666 ( 640240 )
        Part of this is because of the trade barriers we're erecting with China. They have a stated secondary goal of keeping China 'behind the times' in chips by making it 'forbidden' to export the top tier (smallest) of them and/or their manufacturing processes, from the US and the US's key trade partners. Lord knows how they will actually enforce that, but, they are trying. What will definitely happen is that this will force China to develop their own supply chain for chips and their own fab tech. It may work
        • by narcc ( 412956 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @12:47PM (#63330275) Journal

          So your plan is to ... do nothing and let them take over the market anyway? Are you a paid shill or are you just terrible at decision making?

        • by Dan667 ( 564390 )
          the chinese are good at copying, but not innovating. I don't know that they will ever catch up even if they put the resources into it.
          • That may have been the case 30 years ago but not today. It's not 1995 any more.

            • That may have been the case 30 years ago but not today. It's not 1995 any more.

              No, its 1984 and we have always been at war with China.

            • It's very much still the case today. The markets are awash in Chinese knockoffs. Nearly everything out of China falls into one of three categories: Products designed by and manufactured foreign companies, products designed by foreign companies but copied by Chinese manufacturers (sometimes muntzed to the point of being barely operational, even dangerous), and products designed and manufactured by Chinese companies. That last group is usually not doing business in foreign markets.

              And that's not even includin

        • It worked with the Soviets: we kept ahead of them long enough that they eventually collapsed under their own weight. With China's demographic collapse, perhaps the same thing will work there. And even if it doesn't, there's still value to be extracted from the delay (like getting time to rebuild our industrial base or cementing a first mover advantage).

          Finally, don't forget that the Chinese would absolutely love to flood the west with backdoored tech. Keeping suspect tech out is imperative for countries tha

          • It worked with the Soviets: we kept ahead of them long enough that they eventually collapsed under their own weight. With China's demographic collapse, perhaps the same thing will work there. And even if it doesn't, there's still value to be extracted from the delay (like getting time to rebuild our industrial base or cementing a first mover advantage).

            Finally, don't forget that the Chinese would absolutely love to flood the west with backdoored tech. Keeping suspect tech out is imperative for countries that don't want to become CCP client states.

            And the USA doesn't flood the world with backdoored tech. Not at all. No sir. China is the only threat to world peace and security! No country in the world does as much spying as China!

            • Finally, don't forget that the Chinese would absolutely love to flood the west with backdoored tech. Keeping suspect tech out is imperative for countries that don't want to become CCP client states.

              And the USA doesn't flood the world with backdoored tech. Not at all. No sir. China is the only threat to world peace and security! No country in the world does as much spying as China!

              It's high noon... you are facing another gunslinger in the dusty road in front of the saloon. There is only one bullet to be had. Who gets it? You or the other guy?

              You are arguing to give the bullet to the other guy and hope he doesn't shoot you with it.

              Most rational people keep the bullet -and then decide whether to shoot it or not.

              • Finally, don't forget that the Chinese would absolutely love to flood the west with backdoored tech. Keeping suspect tech out is imperative for countries that don't want to become CCP client states.

                And the USA doesn't flood the world with backdoored tech. Not at all. No sir. China is the only threat to world peace and security! No country in the world does as much spying as China!

                It's high noon... you are facing another gunslinger in the dusty road in front of the saloon. There is only one bullet to be had. Who gets it? You or the other guy?

                You are arguing to give the bullet to the other guy and hope he doesn't shoot you with it.

                Most rational people keep the bullet -and then decide whether to shoot it or not.

                I'm not American. You should realise that to much of the outside world, between the USA and China its very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and theres so much soot on both of them its hard to tell which is the pot and which is the kettle.

      • My prediction: Five years from now there will be a massive glut in semiconductors.

        When you get down to it, that's the goal. The government doesn't have the national security policy that it wants, until it can shop in a glutted domestic market.

    • Incentives are pretty well aligned here. The chip companies get very favorable terms and basically free cash to expand their own operations. It's pretty low risk considering the fabs are going into a region already ripe with semiconductor companies and experience in a very stable geopolitical part of the world and dead smack in the largest consumer economy. The chips coming out of these fabs will have customers and long term for any company this should be a profitable venture and the fact so many compa

    • Well for questions like these it is a good idea to look into how similar things have played out before. And the way they play out is that the strings will be lobbied, stretched, and ignored to the point of being meaningless.

      Even if we assume actual goodwill and problem solving attempt for Biden on this, and it will be a cold day in the hell when I assume any such thing for any which president, the reality is even then he would be the the only one in DC with such an agenda. Everyone else will be in it only t

    • I bet you aren't sending your social security checks back to the government. Is that not a hand out?

    • What in the world makes you think that's the goal?

      If Washington can helicopter money over the countryside and buy some corporate behavior they want, it's a smashing success. Making any chips is purely a distraction.

  • by wiggles ( 30088 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @11:51AM (#63330087)

    If they attach too many strings to this, there's a good chance that money will be left on the table. It's happened before.

    • by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @12:10PM (#63330151)

      With what's being suggested here if a company see's this list of demands and feels like that's enough to turn down what is functionally free money to expand their own operations I wouldn't really want them seeing any taxpayer money to begin with.

      This feels like a good filter to pass companies through.

    • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @12:15PM (#63330169) Homepage Journal
      This also, if it stands up...sets up some potentially dangerous presidents.

      This seems to be giving the executive branch legislative powers....as that I don't think (and I could be wrong) that the bills passed on this by congress had these child care and govt. turnover of "excess" profits in the laws.

      This seems an overreach by the executive branch to attach requirements and regulations on a bill that was already passed. Didn't SCOTUS slap the EPA recently for doing just this type of thing?

      Regardless of how you feel about these issues, we have to maintain our Constitutional balance of power as to who makes the rules and who enforces them.

      I'm particularly troubled by the Feds wanting money that is deemed "excess profits"...this makes this incentive to be more of the govt. becoming a shareholder and getting dividends, rather than a governmental incentive program.

      It's a bad thing historically when the government becomes owners of the private sector businesses...there are names for this.

      • This also, if it stands up...sets up some potentially dangerous presidents.

        UGH....damned autocorrect.

        Should be precedents not presidents.

      • Generally for things like this Congress gives the executive a fair amount of leeway for enactment and enforcement. In this case Congress allocated the funds but left it to Biden to use EO's to start implementation. Especially enforecement which Congress sortof has to leave to the executive.

        If Congress deems the executive has overstepped the bounds of the bill they are well within their rights to amend or rescind funding.

        Now this isn't a full statement on the philosophical question of how much power Congres

      • by narcc ( 412956 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @12:58PM (#63330319) Journal

        Our money should come with strings attached. We've seen what happens when we give billion dollar companies our money with no restrictions and it isn't good for us. You can't trust these fuckers as far as you can throw them. They need to be kept on a tight leash.

        It's a bad thing historically when the government becomes owners of the private sector businesses

        This isn't the government taking over the means of production. Get that nonsense out of your head right now. This is about basic accountability. Oh, and if this leads to an unexpected windfall, why the hell shouldn't we get a cut? It was our money that enabled it in the first place!

        I'm sick of giving already wealthy companies billions in corporate welfare and getting nothing back in return. Thank goodness we finally have a POTUS with a spine. We haven't had one of those since FDR.

        • Our money should come with strings attached.

          I agree it should. The problem is WHO is attaching the strings here....in this case, executive, not legislative.

          And the Constitution stipulates that legislative makes the laws/rules...not the executive.

          That is the problem in this case.

          his isn't the government taking over the means of production. Get that nonsense out of your head right now. This is about basic accountability. Oh, and if this leads to an unexpected windfall, why the hell shouldn't we get a cut?

          • by narcc ( 412956 )

            The problem is WHO is attaching the strings here

            Nope. You really need to learn about the 3 co-equal branches of government and their responsibilities. Didn't I send you a link in a different thread?

            The money will come back to the citizens through more jobs.

            LOL! You actually believe that?! We've long disprove "trickle down" theory. Get your head out of your ass.

            FDR was wheelchair bound, not the best person out there that I'd allude to with a "strong spine".

            How stupid are you anyway?

          • by chill ( 34294 )

            The Legislative specifically told the Commerce Department (Executive) to make the rules. That's how it normally happens. Congress isn't an expert on things, so they delegate the details to the experts in the Executive Agencies THEY CREATED to do just that.

            Every Executive Branch agency was created by an Act of Congress and signed into law by the President.

          • hell, I don't really even believe at this moment he's the one calling the shots, honestly.

            A lot of times he'll just go along with whatever anyone wants, which is how he was as a senator, too. But sometimes he has a strong opinion, and he will push it hard, no matter who disagrees with him. A clear example is the pullout of Afghanistan, and pushing back on the state department saying, "We will make sure Ukraine wins."

        • It's also good to be extra careful this time, because of the whole thing with covid relief funds that were greatly exploited.

      • by whitroth ( 9367 )

        Oh, you think limiting "excess profits" is bad. You are, therefore, arguing that the companies can use federal dollars - my tax dollars, to do what they should be using their own money for, so as to provide higher ROI for CEOs and other major investors.

        Right?

        Just like the oil companies massive profits the last year. But oh, no, there's no such thing as "too much profits", and the idea that ultra-rich are price gouging the rest of us is just find with you.

        • Oh, you think limiting "excess profits" is bad. You are, therefore, arguing that the companies can use federal dollars - my tax dollars, to do what they should be using their own money for,

          Let's not forget what this incentive money is for....it is to bring chip manufacturing BACK to the US as a matter of national security, so that we can't be held hostage by foreign countries, like China.

          If this works, then THIS is what the US Feds are getting out of the deal.

          And with manufacturing back in the US, the co

          • Let's not forget what this incentive money is for....it is to bring chip manufacturing BACK to the US as a matter of national security, so that we can't be held hostage by foreign countries, like China. If this works, then THIS is what the US Feds are getting out of the deal.

            By that same logic, shouldn't the Fed be gifting goodwill and federal dollars to the oil industry, rather than trying to go out of their way to kill it through any means necessary? Europe has certainly learned a lesson with regards to

      • by chill ( 34294 )

        I don't think this is conflating the Legislative and Executive. Congress writes laws to say "do this", but the actual implementation is up to the Executive, who employs subject-matter experts for details in many cases. This law, like most, has several phrases like: "The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations or other guidance with respect to..."

        That is, Congress is expressly leaving the

      • This seems an overreach by the executive branch to attach requirements and regulations on a bill that was already passed.

        This is taxpayer money. We should be able to include whatever restrictions or caveats we want since it's our money. If the companies don't like these restrictions/caveats, they can use their own money to build the plants.

        I'm particularly troubled by the Feds wanting money that is deemed "excess profits"...this makes this incentive to be more of the govt. becoming a shareholder
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

          This is taxpayer money. We should be able to include whatever restrictions or caveats we want since it's our money.

          You're missing the point.

          If you want these restrictions attached to the money...it needs to be written in the legislation of the law that is passed by congress (house and senate).

          The legislature writes and passes the laws and rules and regulations.....NOT the executive branch (president and agencies).

          In this case, Biden is using power, basically altering or re-writing the legislation the i

          • What private business has DeSantis as a part of the FL govt taken over?

            Walt Disney World [cnn.com].

            The new law amounts to a state takeover of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, the government body that has given Disney unique powers in Central Florida for more than half a century. It allows the governor to replace the district's existing board - mostly people with ties to Disney - with a five-member body that he hand-picks.

            "Today, the corporate kingdom finally comes to an end," DeSantis said Monday at a Reedy Creek fire station in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. "There's a new sheriff in town and accountability will be the order of the day."

            • This isn't govt taking over Disney.

              This is revoking a very unique situation Disney had that no other business in the US has or has had.

              This deal, back in the day, basically granted Disney a private corporation, it's own city.

              They were an entity unto themselves, they bypassed regulation other companies had to abide by, Disney has their own postal service, own zoning, etc...

              They also bypassed a lot of taxation, etc.

              Disney, through that old deal, really did have it sweet.

              No other company had a special ca

          • The legislature writes and passes the laws and rules and regulations.....NOT the executive branch (president and agencies).

            Congress writes the laws. The executive writes the rules and regulations authorized and funded by the laws Congress passes. That's how it has worked for two centuries. This is nothing new, it is not controversial, and it is not special. And you knew that. Quit concern trolling.

            In this case, Biden is using power, basically altering or re-writing the legislation the is passed and he does not have that power.

            Writing the detailed rules the legislation expressly delegated to the Executive is not "altering or re-writing" anything. It's doing the job of government.

            Did you never watch School House Rock? You seem unusually ignorant about

      • Similar strings have been used in the past. Even by republican presidents. You get our money you have to follow our rules. This is not legislation, it only applies to those accepting the money. It's no different than the idea "if they get our welfare then they need to be actively looking for jobs". Many of the big companies already comply with the requirements anyway.

    • I guess the market will decide that then, and the government can decide if local production capacity is worth offering more, or if some of the strings should be removed.
  • ... insist that companies properly treat the employees they make $billions out of. This country is sinking into a communist utopia.

    • Ethical behavior sometimes needs to be required from companies by the government. Requiring it from only a few companies in particular is an enormous waste of resources. Mixing that requirement with subsidies is stupid. The right way to do this would be to pass a bill that explicitly has this goal and effect, and applies universally. The president should not have the authority to do this: it's an end run around limitations on executive power.
      • by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @12:15PM (#63330171)

        Strings are ALWAYS attached to government money. most often private money does it too; you can't see as clearly.

        Look at train regulations being trashed during the last admin-- that private train money got those curbed... and the right town got hit with the consequences... but not hard enough to knock any sense into them; they'll vote for the crook who brought them some bottled water (and the train crash.)

        • >Strings are ALWAYS attached to government money

          You unironically say that like it's a good thing. The train regulations shouldn't have been trashed. Voters are stupid. And also these strings should have been attached to this deal. Now if the strings had been about repayment, fines if the company fails to produce enough ships, guarantees about suppliers, and the like it would have been fine: that was the point of the act. Tying it to "and also treat your employees better" is stupid even if it's just Tues
          • Strings being attached to government money is GOOD but it can also be BAD depends on the strings.

            Treating employees better is not a bad string to attach; what is wrong with you??

            You don't seem to realize that sizable businesses have people who's job is to game whatever system is in place. I'd rather have them sucking up in productive ways than only playing legal paperwork games. Sucking up in campaign funds and helping out former staff with jobs etc... is the norm and this is not good. I certainly would b

        • Do you mean special interests lobby the government for special treatment and money!?! How dare they!

          Jimmy Carter deregulated airlines under authority granted by congress in the 70s
          The ICC was abolished which had tight control over railroads in 1995, which was under Clinton.

          Companies and special interests lobby all the time, once the NTSB has concluded its investigation there will more than likely be regulatory implications, maybe even *gasp* bringing back a caboose for safety and observation? Who knows, but

  • by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @12:10PM (#63330149)

    While the moves would advance some of the left-behind portions of the president's agenda, they could also set a fraught precedent for attaching policy strings to federal funding.

    Why do they say this like they think it's a bad thing. Maybe there should be some strings attached in order to get government funding? Clearly, the policy of just tossing money at multi-billion-dollar corporations for nothing hasn't been doing much for us. From the carriers taking funds to build networks that never materialize to the auto industry and the airlines taking government funds and only using them for stock buy-backs and executive bonuses, I think it's high fucking time there be some sort of tit-for-tat when the government comes to hand you a big check for a specific purpose.

    • Why do they say this like they think it's a bad thing. Maybe there should be some strings attached in order to get government funding?

      The problems that this is causing a lot of folks, isn't so much the "strings"....but WHO is adding the strings.

      The strings, if they were wanted should be added by congress when they write and pass the bill.

      Biden is in the executive branch...and is NOT supposed to have legislative powers. He is trying to add onto laws that were passed by congress and that is not a power th

      • Actually the stock buyback rule is in the law:

        Limitation on Using Amounts for Stock Buybacks or the Payment of Dividends.--
        (1) > In general.--A person receiving amounts appropriated under this section or from a covered fund may not use such amounts, as determined using the criteria for eligible uses of amounts under sections 9902(a)(4) and 9905(a)(4) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act

      • by narcc ( 412956 )

        Why is it that you right-wing nuts never seem to have even a basic understanding of our government?

        You could use some remediation: [phe.gov]

        The most common types of legal instruments discussed are laws and regulations. Laws are passed by both branches of Congress and signed by the President. Laws establish requirements or prohibitions. Regulations are published by executive branch agencies to clarify their interpretation of a law and how a law will be implemented. Regulations also state requirements or prohibitions.

        • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @02:59PM (#63330817) Homepage Journal

          Regulations are published by executive branch agencies to clarify their interpretation of a law and how a law will be implemented. Regulations also state requirements or prohibitions.

          Sure, they can clarify all day long.

          They just cannot make up NEW law....and that's what they are attempting here.

          Unless I missed it, the law contained no stipulations regarding child care for example.

          They can state requirements or prohibitions BASED on the actual written law....they cannot pull shit they want out of thin air.

          Again, look at last SCOTUS session where they slapped down the EPA for overstepping their bounds, and basically creating new law.

          These limitations on the executive branch are there for a reason...if the president can actually write law, rather than only enforce it....that leads to dictatorship.

          • by narcc ( 412956 )

            What do you call someone who doubles-down on their nonsense in light of irrefutable evidence to the contrary? Delusional? Ignorant Troll? Just plain stupid?

            • What do you call someone who doubles-down on their nonsense in light of irrefutable evidence to the contrary? Delusional? Ignorant Troll? Just plain stupid?

              I dunno...you keep doubling down...what do you identify as these days?

              ;)

              • by narcc ( 412956 )

                Sigh... You said something stupid because you don't understand even basic civics. You can admit that you were wrong, or you can say nothing and go away. Only in your crazy Fox News world does repeating your nonsense give it credibility.

    • Why do they say this like they think it's a bad thing. Maybe there should be some strings attached in order to get government funding? Clearly, the policy of just tossing money at multi-billion-dollar corporations for nothing hasn't been doing much for us.

      Yes, the government SHOULD be sure they get something of value from corporations in return funding. After all, the business sector always makes damn sure that the money they give to the government, via lobbying and campaign contributions, is well spent.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GlennC ( 96879 )

      Why do they say this like they think it's a bad thing. Maybe there should be some strings attached in order to get government funding?

      The cheerleaders for "Team Red" think it's a bad thing because the people who advocated for it are on "Team Blue."

    • The problem is congress writes the laws and conditions for the laws, the administration is responsible for enacting them. These types of strings aren't in the original legislation.

  • by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @12:26PM (#63330221)
    Now we will see if anything is actually built.
  • This is how Hollywood ensures actors get no cut of the profits. They create fake expenses to eat up the profits.

    Just ask David Prowse and the cast of Gilligan's island.

  • Yes, it takes a lot of money for a fab, but we need green wood, too.
  • Wait, don't they also have to specify correct pronouns and submit d.i.e. statements?

  • Fascism (Score:2, Troll)

    by Big Bipper ( 1120937 )
    Benito Mussolini said that "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power", and we all know what that led to. On the other hand I think most will agree that the off-shoring of much of our industry is a bad thing that we should try to reverse. But beware the slippery slope.
  • we have a report from the NYT saying that the gov't will release regulations requiring child care
    but so far, as of 4PM teusday 28th feb, those regs are not public

    so we don't actually know if this is true or not

    after all companies are incredibly invenntive at getting around so called requirements
    and lets say Intel doesn't do what it is is supposed to and then gets fined; big whoop

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.

Working...