US Reports Big Interest in $52 Billion Semiconductor Chips Funding (reuters.com) 26
The U.S. Commerce Department said on Wednesday that more than 460 companies have expressed interested in winning government semiconductor subsidy funding in a bid to boost the country's competitiveness with China's science and technology efforts. From a report: The White House is marking the one-year anniversary on Wednesday of President Joe Biden's signing of the landmark "Chips for America" legislation providing $52.7 billion in subsidies for U.S. semiconductor production, research and workforce development. Biden said in a statement that companies have announced $166 billion in semiconductors and electronics manufacturing over the last year, adding the law will "make America once again a leader in semiconductor manufacturing and less dependent on other countries for our electronics or clean energy supply chains."
The Commerce Department began accepting applications in June for the $39-billion subsidy program for U.S. semiconductor manufacturing as well as equipment and materials for making chips but has not yet issued awards. "We're finally making the investments that are long overdue to secure our economic and national security," Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told reporters. "We need to move quickly but it's more important we get it right."
The Commerce Department began accepting applications in June for the $39-billion subsidy program for U.S. semiconductor manufacturing as well as equipment and materials for making chips but has not yet issued awards. "We're finally making the investments that are long overdue to secure our economic and national security," Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told reporters. "We need to move quickly but it's more important we get it right."
Yeah? (Score:2)
Companies are interested in free money? Well that's shocking.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't welfare great!
Re: (Score:2)
I know. How could that possibly be? In further news, dog bites man.
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking indeed. ;)
I like the line of "getting it right". You want to avoid things like the companies involved merely building an empty warehouse/factory and never moving beyond the point of hiring a couple security guards to keep the homeless out, if that, while still getting all the sweet subsidy money.
You want actual production and actual jobs. Even then, expect the number of jobs to be less than expected, to pay less, etc...
Because of subsidization competition - various countries, states, cities, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
These are gifts to some of the richest corporations in the world, they never need to be qualified or paid back. Just your children's tax money helping Intel, TI, and others have new fabs at a discount because, who doesn't like free money?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, wow, you're ancient, but is basically parenting the grandparent post really contribute anything?
Yes, this stuff often amounts to "free gifts", but normally the government is treating it more like a purchase, hoping that the ancillary benefits - like more income tax revenue because more high paying jobs, will justify the costs.
I was just pointing out that due to competition and poorly worded contracts on the part of the government, often said benefits are extremely marginal.
Take Russia invading Ukraine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit of a gamble though, especially when it certainly is looking like it will be Biden vs Trump again so you can either bank on the predictability of Biden of which you already know where everything stands versus Trump who could remove some restrictions but also put a whole suite of different restrictions on the funds or ditch the program entirely if he can because, well, the guy operates based on whims and preference.
large corporations with billions on the line overall prefer some restrictions with
Keep spending that money we don't have (Score:3)
Re:Keep spending that money we don't have (Score:4)
It's an investment "to secure our economic and national security". Most of the money will probably come back in the form of taxes due to the jobs and economic activity the semiconductor plants will generate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
More fabs will drive down the cost of chips (supply and demand), and how many years will it take one Fab to generate $4BN in new tax revenue to even equal the cash gift we're giving them? How many workers for how many years will it take to generate $57 BN in NEW tax revenue to pay off this program? I think it's a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't just the chips, or even the jobs that are created. Things like this drive a wave of related economic activity and much of it generates taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
You're under the impression that government needs to balance the budget in order to operate. That there is no other economic rule they can operate from.
Unfortunately, if you believe that, you've failed economics. You've fallen for the microeconomic thinking that governments and big business are simply larger instances of you and have to follow the same rules you do. But they don't, because macroeconomics takes into account big things. And there's a good reason why we have both imcroeconomics and macroeconoi
And yet we can't spend it (Score:4, Insightful)
As a result, they assigned NIST the CHIPS Budget [nist.gov]. NIST is perhaps one of the most technically qualifed groups in the government. But, they told NIST they couldn't hire anyone to manage this money; they had to work with their existing staff so that no industry insiders could take the role and direct funding to their preferred companies.
While on paper I applaud this strategy to ensure the money is spent wisely, it's not like NIST isn't busy already. This list is just their major programs [nist.gov]; they have dozens, possibly hundreds of other smaller projects [nist.gov]. $52B directed wisely is not a small undertaking. So expect this to go slow, or cut other projects from NIST. And TBH, the biggest issue is labor [yahoo.com], which is unfortunately translating into "Visas", which are faster, and not "worker training programs" which are slower but much better for the economy. Nothing against immigration, but if you're building a new industry from scratch, training and education needs to come before overseas workers.
Lets Subsidize _ALL_ US Industries... (Score:1)
...without it costing the government a penny. Simple solution is to repeal the income taxes and the 16th Amendment that authorizes them, and then pass the FairTax that also totally untaxes the poor AND all US industry from federal income taxes. Boost prosperity big-time as US dollars being sequestered offshore to avoid the income taxes come flying back to the country to be invested in an income-tax-free environment. The income taxes that would disappear would be personal, payroll, capital gains, estate
Easy first limit (Score:3)
Is your stock at least 51% American Owned? Are you using the money specifically to build factories in the lower 48, Alaska, or Hawaii?
If the answer to either of those is NO, your company shouldn't be eligible.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe Intel already has such a benefit- though more "near site" than "onsite". They have contracts with child care providers within a few blocks of each campus.
poorly designed (Score:2)
And yet, many of the same a55holes that pushed such BS are the ones trying to bring it back but with some of the worst thou