Question Massive new Intel manufacturing facility coming to Ohio

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
11,400
5,160
136
Oh I agree that it is the way of the country right now, but it is a bad thing for the country. In Wisconsin, for the Foxconn project the government has already spent ~$200 million for land (pushing people out of their homes and farms), $185 million for water and sewers, $342 million for roads, all for a planned 1454 jobs (scaled back from the original promises of 13,000 jobs). That adds up to $500,000 of our tax money per planned job created. But as of 2020, only 281 jobs were actually created, making this $2.5 million per job so far.

The only way to stop it will never happen, but the federal government would have to tax the businesses at 100% of the subsidies they get, and then lower personal income taxes an equivalent amount (so this is revenue neutral). Then businesses would base their decisions mostly on the right location for their work. It won't happen, but it would stop this ridiculous abuse of our money.

Sorry to make this thread political.
Well, states have the right to make these deals. They often seem to be a bad deal in terms of cost to benefit ratio - but politicians are under allot of pressure to bring jobs into their respective states. (although many do ultimately bear fruit, so long as they don't just jump ship for added incentives in other states). Companies know this and, of course, take advantage of it. I don't know of any reasonable law that can be written at a federal level that would help the situation without violating states rights. So yeah, stuck here due to the unflinching lack of ethics among the top ranks of multi-national companies and the state's demand for enhanced job opportunities.
 

Roland00Address

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2008
2,113
213
106
In less than 25 minutes Intel is going to do a live webcast about IDM 2.0 and Ohio foundry plans. Link below, with a similar page being put up immediately after with a rebroadcast option per Intel PR.

This was an unplanned / untelegraphed thing with Intel announcing this live webcast in less than 24 hours. Anyone plans to listen / watch?

 

Saylick

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2012
1,643
2,074
136
Well, states have the right to make these deals. They often seem to be a bad deal in terms of cost to benefit ratio - but politicians are under allot of pressure to bring jobs into their respective states. (although many do ultimately bear fruit, so long as they don't just jump ship for added incentives in other states). Companies know this and, of course, take advantage of it. I don't know of any reasonable law that can be written at a federal level that would help the situation without violating states rights. So yeah, stuck here due to the unflinching lack of ethics among the top ranks of multi-national companies and the state's demand for enhanced job opportunities.
I would hope that as part of the tax subsidy agreement that there be a schedule of milestones for jobs created, and if the company fails to meet the deadlines, there are fines imposed to recoup the subsidy back. It just seems like companies aren't penalized at all when they fail to uphold their end of the deal. If another state makes a similar deal but without any of the penalties, let them have the deal. It ain't worth getting into a bidding war against another state if it potentially jeopardizes the financial livelihood of your state. Just my 2c.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scannall

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
11,400
5,160
136
I would hope that as part of the tax subsidy agreement that there be a schedule of milestones for jobs created, and if the company fails to meet the deadlines, there are fines imposed to recoup the subsidy back. It just seems like companies aren't penalized at all when they fail to uphold their end of the deal. If another state makes a similar deal but without any of the penalties, let them have the deal. It ain't worth getting into a bidding war against another state if it potentially jeopardizes the financial livelihood of your state. Just my 2c.
I agree. Problem is, there is usually another state that will come along and decided to be content with a net negative return on investment. It's absolutely crazy. Net positive returns on investment, long term commitments so that companies just don't jump around from state to state every 10 years. Governors of States need to get together and set some reasonable ground rules to ensure that reasonable standards are upheld. One can hope.
 

Saylick

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2012
1,643
2,074
136
I agree. Problem is, there is usually another state that will come along and decided to be content with a net negative return on investment. It's absolutely crazy. Net positive returns on investment, long term commitments so that companies just don't jump around from state to state every 10 years. Governors of States need to get together and set some reasonable ground rules to ensure that reasonable standards are upheld. One can hope.
Yeah, that's a problem with human psychology in general: that people prioritize the short term over long term, or rather we're very bad at thinking about the long term. It happens with CEOs focusing on the next quarterly earnings instead of big long term plans, people not giving a crap about climate change because they'll be long dead when it affects them, and Governors not giving a crap about the long term health of their state as long as they just win the next reelection.

As for Governors getting together, you think they'd be smart enough by now to collectively bargain but the issue is that the deal is typically all-or-nothing. When people unionize, it's implied that everyone in the union gets the same benefits. Even if Governors established some ground rules, they'd only benefit from them if they were the ones that won the contract. If you were one of the Governors that didn't win the contract, all you've done is just help the winner negotiate a better deal. As a result, each Governor is just going to enter the game for themselves, no matter the cost: that's the Nash Equilibrium.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,446
5,493
126
Good for Ohio. But I don't think it solves the fundamental problem for US semiconductor manufacturing competitiveness, which is getting the best and brightest people to major and choose careers in nano-fabrication to move US ahead of competition. TSMC and Samsung have their pick of the best and brightest in their countries, while in the US, that honor belongs to the software giants, followed by hardware design houses, and only then maybe the fabrication facilities. You can't win against other advanced countries' A teams if you are bringing B or C teams.
Intel needs to go to the beginning and look at it from perspective of a smart high school senior or college freshman choosing a major today. If they follow the software engineering path, they can quickly advance to make over half a million per year, extract major perks, and work from anywhere with a flexible schedule, with a lot of employer competition for their skills. Compared to picking a career in semiconductor manufacturing, where they will likely end up tied to a few locations in states with not so great weather like Texas, Arizona, and Ohio, with usually single employer for their skills likely taking advantage of that to pay less, working on a rigid schedule in clean rooms with risk of exposure to toxic chemicals. Right now it's a slam dunk easy choice to go into software or if you are really HW enthusiast, chip design. Chip manufacturing is not really attractive, and it's for the likes of Intel to fix that by setting up an incentive structure starting with the first year of college to get top students on a path towards long term careers in chip fabrication. They should provide scholarships and set up high pay structure for engineers (with top senior engineers making over a million dollars a year, like they could in software) to look forward to now to even have a chance. They have to get out of the bottom feeder cost cutting mindset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and lobz

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
11,400
5,160
136
Yeah, that's a problem with human psychology in general: that people prioritize the short term over long term, or rather we're very bad at thinking about the long term. It happens with CEOs focusing on the next quarterly earnings instead of big long term plans, people not giving a crap about climate change because they'll be long dead when it affects them, and Governors not giving a crap about the long term health of their state as long as they just win the next reelection.

As for Governors getting together, you think they'd be smart enough by now to collectively bargain but the issue is that the deal is typically all-or-nothing. When people unionize, it's implied that everyone in the union gets the same benefits. Even if Governors established some ground rules, they'd only benefit from them if they were the ones that won the contract. If you were one of the Governors that didn't win the contract, all you've done is just help the winner negotiate a better deal. As a result, each Governor is just going to enter the game for themselves, no matter the cost: that's the Nash Equilibrium.
Hence the problem. I was really suggesting a floor - even then, I said 'one could hope'.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
11,400
5,160
136
Good for Ohio. But I don't think it solves the fundamental problem for US semiconductor manufacturing competitiveness, which is getting the best and brightest people to major and choose careers in nano-fabrication to move US ahead of competition. TSMC and Samsung have their pick of the best and brightest in their countries, while in the US, that honor belongs to the software giants, followed by hardware design houses, and only then maybe the fabrication facilities. You can't win against other advanced countries' A teams if you are bringing B or C teams.
Intel needs to go to the beginning and look at it from perspective of a smart high school senior or college freshman choosing a major today. If they follow the software engineering path, they can quickly advance to make over half a million per year, extract major perks, and work from anywhere with a flexible schedule, with a lot of employer competition for their skills. Compared to picking a career in semiconductor manufacturing, where they will likely end up tied to a few locations in states with not so great weather like Texas, Arizona, and Ohio, with usually single employer for their skills likely taking advantage of that to pay less, working on a rigid schedule in clean rooms with risk of exposure to toxic chemicals. Right now it's a slam dunk easy choice to go into software or if you are really HW enthusiast, chip design. Chip manufacturing is not really attractive, and it's for the likes of Intel to fix that by setting up an incentive structure starting with the first year of college to get top students on a path towards long term careers in chip fabrication. They should provide scholarships and set up high pay structure for engineers (with top senior engineers making over a million dollars a year, like they could in software) to look forward to now to even have a chance. They have to get out of the bottom feeder cost cutting mindset.
Well, yes to some degree. I think, from the little I've gleaned, is that those on the process design and development get paid very well. And the jobs are very interesting - though mainly done by PHD chemists and some PHD physicists (evaluating quantum effects and mitigation). Kelin Kuhn used to head lead on the quantum device issues and Mark Bohr headed up process, even though he had an EE PHD (IIRC). Operators on the lines are well paid from what I know (or at least were). The EEs doing CPU design at Intel face greater challenges, as they have very large teams and Intel routinely thins the herd in very unproductive and moral crushing way. Stupid bean counters.

Very few software engineers make $500K/yr (pretty much only silicon valley). No software engineer is actually making $1M, if they are active in sftw development - perhaps if they work in a start up, they may net that much, or more, with stock options. Anyway, the incentives are their for the most part - but most college students don't want to face the grind of day to day circuit design (RTL) at a big company like Intel. Intel really needs to break their own intrenched culture inorder to foster better moral and reverse their brain drain. Promoting based on talent more than 'loyalty' would be helpful.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,446
5,493
126
Well, yes to some degree. I think, from the little I've gleaned, is that those on the process design and development get paid very well. And the jobs are very interesting - though mainly done by PHD chemists and some PHD physicists (evaluating quantum effects and mitigation). Kelin Kuhn used to head lead on the quantum device issues and Mark Bohr headed up process, even though he had an EE PHD (IIRC). Operators on the lines are well paid from what I know (or at least were). The EEs doing CPU design at Intel face greater challenges, as they have very large teams and Intel routinely thins the herd in very unproductive and moral crushing way. Stupid bean counters.

Very few software engineers make $500K/yr (pretty much only silicon valley). No software engineer is actually making $1M, if they are active in sftw development - perhaps if they work in a start up, they may net that much, or more, with stock options. Anyway, the incentives are their for the most part - but most college students don't want to face the grind of day to day circuit design (RTL) at a big company like Intel. Intel really needs to break their own intrenched culture inorder to foster better moral and reverse their brain drain. Promoting based on talent more than 'loyalty' would be helpful.
Check out levels.fyi
500K is now standard FAANG total comp for senior (10+ year) engineers, with distinguished (20+ year) engineers making upwards of $1M. As individual contributors. Management can make more, obviously. Semiconductor manufacturing can't offer that sort of range. But it should, if it has multi-billion investments riding on it. Fab research is also very data science focused, those guys make bank in AI now. Intel needs to step up.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
11,400
5,160
136
Check out levels.fyi
500K is now standard FAANG total comp for senior (10+ year) engineers, with distinguished (20+ year) engineers making upwards of $1M. As individual contributors. Management can make more, obviously. Semiconductor manufacturing can't offer that sort of range. But it should, if it has multi-billion investments riding on it. Fab research is also very data science focused, those guys make bank in AI now. Intel needs to step up.
Yes, FAANG - which constitutes a fraction of the of the software market and includes total comp because FAANG options have tremendous upside. Distinguished 20y+ software veterans are so unlikely to be writing code. They are so much more valuable doing architecture or leading teams. You can be sure that there are plenty of very good engineers doing grunt work at Google (with >100K employees). Many work in the SI Valley region where the cost of living is insane - so attracting good talent is expensive. Wages are subject to geographic location. Probably the only way for Intel to boost wages is to get lean (more like AMD), but stop the stupid periodic 'RIFs' - it's asinine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and lobz

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,446
5,493
126
Yes, FAANG - which constitutes a fraction of the of the software market and includes total comp because FAANG options have tremendous upside. Distinguished 20y+ software veterans are so unlikely to be writing code. They are so much more valuable doing architecture or leading teams. You can be sure that there are plenty of very good engineers doing grunt work at Google (with >100K employees). Many work in the SI Valley region where the cost of living is insane - so attracting good talent is expensive. Wages are subject to geographic location. Probably the only way for Intel to boost wages is to get lean (more like AMD), but stop the stupid periodic 'RIFs' - it's asinine.
If they want the best, they have to pay like the best. Which means FAANG. Location excuse won't fly for long with WFH. Silicon Valley to Ohio WFH would be sub 20% base cut while keeping unvested stock in most cases. Intel is not in the ballpark. They are sobbing quietly in the parking lot. They do the dumbest RIFs too because they don't reach out to key people and tell them not to worry about it. So they start looking for jobs.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
11,400
5,160
136
If they want the best, they have to pay like the best. Which means FAANG. Location excuse won't fly for long with WFH. Silicon Valley to Ohio WFH would be sub 20% base cut while keeping unvested stock in most cases. Intel is not in the ballpark. They are sobbing quietly in the parking lot. They do the dumbest RIFs too because they don't reach out to key people and tell them not to worry about it. So they start looking for jobs.
Sure fine. Whatever.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tlh97 and lobz

ASK THE COMMUNITY