Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), the world's largest contract chip maker, is expected to announce a massive $100 billion investment in advanced semiconductor manufacturing facilities in the United States over the next three years. This substantial commitment aims to boost domestic chip production and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign suppliers, particularly in light of escalating tensions with China and growing concerns about semiconductor supply chain security. The investment includes plans for multiple new factories, potentially creating thousands of jobs.
Shein and Temu exploit a US customs rule called the "de minimis" threshold, which exempts packages valued under $800 from import duties and taxes. This allows them to ship massive quantities of low-priced goods directly to consumers without the added costs normally associated with international trade. This practice, combined with potentially undervalued shipments, is under increasing scrutiny from US lawmakers who argue it gives Chinese retailers an unfair advantage, hurts American businesses, and facilitates the import of counterfeit or unsafe products. Proposed legislation seeks to close this loophole and level the playing field for domestic retailers.
HN commenters discuss the potential abuse of the de minimis threshold by Shein and Temu, allowing them to avoid import duties and taxes. Some argue that this gives these companies an unfair advantage over US businesses and hurts American jobs. Others point out that this "loophole" is not new, has existed for decades, and is used by many international retailers. Some also suggest the focus should be on simplifying the US tax code and reducing tariffs rather than targeting specific companies. The impact on consumer prices and potential benefits of lower prices are also debated, with some commenters suggesting that addressing the loophole could raise prices. There is skepticism about whether Congress will effectively close the loophole due to lobbying from various interests. Some also highlight the complexity of international trade and customs procedures.
Summary of Comments ( 679 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43243580
HN commenters are skeptical of TSMC's purported $100B investment, questioning whether it will fully materialize and expressing concern over the high cost of US chip fabrication. Several point out that TSMC's Arizona fabs are smaller and less advanced than their Taiwanese counterparts, suggesting the investment figure may include long-term operational costs rather than solely construction. Others discuss the geopolitical motivations behind the move, viewing it as a US strategy to secure its chip supply chain amidst rising tensions with China. Some highlight the challenges TSMC faces in the US, including higher labor and operating expenses, and potential difficulties attracting and retaining skilled talent. Finally, a few commenters raise concerns about the environmental impact of these large-scale fabs and the potential strain on local resources.
The Hacker News post titled "TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S." discussing the linked Wall Street Journal article generated a significant number of comments exploring various angles of the potential investment.
Several commenters discussed the geopolitical implications, with some suggesting this move is driven by U.S. efforts to secure its semiconductor supply chain and reduce reliance on Asian manufacturers, particularly in light of increasing tensions with China. Others expressed skepticism about the long-term viability of such a massive investment, citing the significantly higher operating costs in the U.S. compared to Taiwan, including labor, land, and utilities. The discussion also touched on potential subsidies and government incentives that might be involved in making the investment attractive to TSMC.
A recurring theme in the comments was the concern about the potential "brain drain" from Taiwan, with speculation about whether TSMC would be able to attract and retain the necessary talent in the U.S. Commenters debated the quality of U.S. engineering talent and the cultural differences that might impact TSMC's operations. Some argued that the U.S. education system needs to be strengthened to support such advanced manufacturing endeavors.
Some commenters questioned the WSJ's reporting, pointing out the lack of specific details and the use of phrases like "expected to announce." They highlighted previous instances where similar announcements had not materialized or had been scaled back. Others expressed concern about the potential for political influence on TSMC's decision-making and the possibility of this investment being used as a political tool.
There was also a discussion about the potential impact on the global semiconductor market, with some suggesting that this investment could lead to increased competition and innovation, while others worried about the fragmentation of the supply chain and the potential for higher prices. Some commenters raised concerns about the environmental impact of such a large-scale manufacturing facility.
Finally, a few commenters offered personal anecdotes and experiences related to the semiconductor industry, providing insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with such large-scale investments. These comments added a human dimension to the discussion, highlighting the real-world implications of these geopolitical and economic forces.