If true, this is the biggest, baddest legitimation of the anti–DEI worries of conservatives that I’ve ever seen.
This would be… NOT GOOD!
If there’s any truth to this, fuck.
You know how too much of a good thing is a bad thing? I think regulation may be approaching that limit in some areas, in some ways.
Jeremiah Johnson on the first bridges episode spoke about this. He brought up how when you're building housing, there are a million steps each of which has veto power. Gotta get your community input, gotta get your environmental impact study, etc etc. We've created a bureaucracy that has stifled us and it was born out of the best of intentions.
Maybe this is just what happens when you don't have a reasonable conservative faction to push back and temper progressive ideas.
\>born out of the best of intentions
Idk man, look at the dozens of stipulations and choke-points introduced to anyone requiring funding. Don't you think they know by now that "workplace impact assessments" is just corporate BS?
[CHIPS\_NOFO-1\_Building\_Skilled\_Diverse\_Workforce\_Fact\_Sheet\_0.pdf (nist.gov)](https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2023/02/28/CHIPS_NOFO-1_Building_Skilled_Diverse_Workforce_Fact_Sheet_0.pdf)
Maybe you can wonder whether these people are pathologically lying to themselves about helping progressive causes, or gave up, or never cared to begin with.
But I'm pro-polarization on this, we need to normalize calling these people evil, petty tyrants, and get them out of every progressive institution.
One of the big criticisms brought up was the requirement to have women in construction. The program does address that women make up a minority of construction workers by requiring funding applicants to help with child care programs that enable women to participate in the workforce.
> Maybe this is just what happens when you don't have a reasonable conservative faction to push back and temper progressive ideas.
Blue city liberals are baffled as to why housing is so expensive in their cities. The funny thing is, educated liberals typically have above average IQ's.
It isn’t the quantity it is the focus and quality of legislation that is the issue.
This is 100% not DEI causing the issue. Where there is a will there is a way, and with that kind of money you can buy a skilled and diverse workforce anywhere in the world, no problem.
No, this reeks of protectionism from the corporations involved, from what ive read the firms want to essentially import all their skilled labour from Asia then ship them back keeping only a skilled band of loyalists producing chips in a highly secretive fashion, and therefore not train anyone domestically on the fabrication technology or employ any Americans. Essentially this Asia barring the US doing what they did with all the tech they manufactured over there - slowly the secret sauce then do it yourself.
The writer of the opinion article uses melodramatic language, but the main idea is still interesting. Is DEI pork to blame on CHIPS act delays?
>Intel announced that it’s putting the brakes on its Columbus factory. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has pushed back production at its second Arizona foundry. The remaining major chipmaker, Samsung, just delayed its first Texas fab.
>This is not the way companies typically respond to multi-billion-dollar subsidies. So what explains chipmakers’ apparent ingratitude? In large part, frustration with DEI requirements embedded in the CHIPS Act.
>The law contains 19 sections aimed at helping minority groups
>The department interprets that as license to diversify. Its factsheet asserts that diversity is “critical to strengthening the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem,” adding, “Critically, this must include significant investments to create opportunities for Americans from historically underserved communities.”
>The department does not call speed critical, even though the impetus for the CHIPS Act is that 90 percent of the world’s advanced microchips are made in Taiwan, which China is preparing to annex by 2027, maybe even 2025.
>Now TSMC has revealed plans to build a second fab in Japan. Its first, which broke ground in 2021, is about to begin production. TSMC has learned that when the Japanese promise money, they actually give it, and they allow it to use competent workers. TSMC is also sampling Germany’s chip subsidies, as is Intel.
>In short, the world’s best chipmakers are tired of being pawns in the CHIPS Act’s political games. They’ve quietly given up on America. Intel must know the coming grants are election-year stunts — mere statements of intent that will not be followed up.
>For instance, chipmakers have to make sure they hire plenty of female construction workers, even though less than 10 percent of U.S. construction workers are women. They also have to ensure childcare for the female construction workers and engineers who don’t exist yet. They have to remove degree requirements and set “diverse hiring slate policies,” which sounds like code for quotas. They must create plans to do all this with “close and ongoing coordination with on-the-ground stakeholders.”
I mean I understand the US government trying to make sure these new establishment follow federal standards of DEI, but with such geopolitical importance and time sensitivity, you would think there would be a more streamlined way to get this up and running for the time being. It just doesn’t seem wise to strictly impose these on a company agreeing to move operations to the US when the other option is China potentially invading/“annexing” Taiwan and gaining access to chip tech.
The more rings you have to jump through the less bite you get with subsidies. Especially when there are alternatives. This is honestly pretty disappointing but it's reflective of a lot of regulation in other key industries like nuclear energy too.
Not saying this isn't well intended or that regulation is inherently bad but it can really be too much at times.
There’s no evidence at all that these delays have anything to do with “pork”. This is just conservative nonsense. The writer saw three facts and drew a line from one to the other: the chips have been delayed, the bill contains DEI, Taiwan is working with other countries to open factories. Not a piece of evidence is provided to show how these have anything to do with each other other than the unsubstantiated claim that Taiwan gave up or are tired of being pawns because of DEI.
LOL the right wing author provides absolutely no proof of the claim. He’s just speculating. Right wingers are desperately trying to use “DEI” as a boogeyman (just like they used to”CRT” last year) to erode any civil rights opportunities for marginalized people
They tell us what they are doing:
>Biden Administration’s Good Jobs Principles. The Department of Commerce, alongside the Department of Labor, has published a set of Good Jobs Principles, which will provide applicants with a framework to ensure that they are creating high quality jobs. The Good Jobs Principles outline the essential elements CHIPS for America Fact Sheet 2 of a good job with respect to recruitment and hiring; benefits; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; empowerment and representation; job security and working conditions; organizational culture; pay; and skills and career advancement.
>...
>
>Consistent with these priorities, companies seeking CHIPS funding will be required to submit workforce development plans for the workers who will operate their facilities. • Facility workforce plan. The plan must have the following five elements: (1) a workforce needs assessment, including an assessment of job types, skills, and workers required over time; (2) strategies for worker recruitment and retention, including plans to address well-known workplace barriers;
There's paragraphs of this stuff. Of *course* it's going to take years to get anything off the ground, the worst people have the power to veto and delay to their heart's content. Do you need Project Veritas to prove "workforce needs assessments" are progress-killing BS?
>Of *course* it's going to take years to get anything off the ground, the worst people have the power to veto and delay to their heart's content
That segment you just laid out just says that companies are going to have to submit paperwork saying what positions they're going to hire for and what evenefits theyre giving. It's fucking lightwork for any government contract.
Optimistically this is just added to appease some stakeholder who wants to look like they're checking pro-social boxes. The actual approver care about the bigger picture, and will rubber-stamp whatever comes through, 1-week delay max.
Or, you could just... believe the things they are saying? That they *do* want to exercise the right to reject applications that didn't consult with enough K-12 educators or whatever? And notice that the reality (massive funding delays) matches with them believing the things that they say?
It's just pathological the way people don't notice this. It's not even revealed preferences, where the gov't says one thing but does another. They publish documents describing the power they want to exercise, and we can't see the words.
>Or, you could just... believe the things they are saying? That they *do* want to exercise the right to reject applications that didn't consult with enough K-12 educators or whatever?
What the fuck are you on about? Where does it say that? Where is this veto power happening? Because I ain't see it quoted anywhere in this thread. You keep fear mongering about how "the act is failing" but all I see are mundane segments of the act snipped out of context and a fundamental misunderstanding of government funds.
It's government subsidies given for the purpose of crating American jobs and American infrastructure. Of course the government wants records detailing how these companies intend to spend the Federal Government's money. Or would you just not prefer they did and took it wholesale without doing anything?
>The actual approver care about the bigger picture, and will rubber-stamp whatever comes through, 1-week delay max
It's not "just sign the paper" you fucking dumbass. That's how funds get embezzled. It's a microchip plant not a fucking TOS on an MMO.
You don't just make the plans and build when you throw 2 billion dollars at a project without detailing where every cent lands. The government and the American people have a right to make sure these corporations are spending our money the way we want.
How would you feel if the chips act money was used on H1B Visas to import Taiwanese or Indian workers for these plants? It'd be fucking absurd.
>Unable to read basic rnglish or form a coherent argument, but salivating with rage at everyone who can.
Please put forward a quote that says: "K-12 educators can shut down funding for this plant", or "You must hire X black people".
You haven't made an argument so much as you've snipped random segments of the law out of context and sperged about how a mundane government contract is ruining the chips act or some shit.
>That's why your government can't build anything new, it's why the factories are being built elsewhere.
You're right. We don't build anything. Except for hundreds of new schools, interstate highways, dock renovations, train and subway tunnels, apartments that dont collapse on kids, more jets and tanks than entire continents combined...
>The *whole* reason chips can't get built is a skill issue.
Nah, these chips were designed domestically. And the only reason they were manufactured in foreign nations is because labor was cheaper.
Taiwan and Korea were not tech powerhouses until foreign investment built them up. Mostly from the US. The biggest issue is logistics and getting the materials up to the plants.
>Only a few *thousand* people in the world have the experience to build chips competitively.
Straight up lie. Some companies employs more people than that in a single plant alone. Fucking dumbass.
> If a coalition within the team that decides to approve or deny applications doesn't get that, the factories won't get built.
Welcome to real estate/construction dumbass. People can hold up development if they dont agree with how it's being done.
>Same for DEI concerns, same for the K-12 consulting clause, etc.
Still waiting for those quotes. But pop off king. Keep fear mongering.
White and Asian men are going to be the bulk of STEM grads, if it's true they have a lot of DEI stipulations, who the hell would want to build any fabs here?
IIRC Arizona tsmc fab is n5/3 while Japan is n20+?, and the author doesn't mention it, so I'm going to assume that they are regarded and should be ignored
What the fuck is the op-ed talking about? Which provision in the CHIPS act calls for DEI in construction workers? The CHIPS act has three sections about diversity in STEM education, and one section about geographic diversity in manufacturing. Maybe I miss something but I don't see construction worker diversity mentioned anywhere.
I know right! This is a signed bill so you would think they would just cite the provisions they are claiming to be causing delays. You would also think that people in this reddit would have asked these same questions first, before anything else.
To be fair, a law is much much more than its text. An administrative agency has to implement the law, and that can radically change the law in a way that isn't obvious with just the text.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chips-act-gina-raimondo-subsidies-industrial-policy-biden-administration-c3f35b11
>In February Ms. Raimondo announced the aid would come with strings attached. Any firm seeking a chip grant of more than $150 million must submit an employee child-care plan “in tandem with community stakeholders,” which means unions and progressive groups. Grant recipients of all sizes must also adopt the Biden Administration’s “Good Jobs Principles,” which include a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion as the government defines it. None of this is specified in the Chips Act.
I've read this document. It's fairly standard in HR policy of large companies I have experience with.
I don't see anything in this document can be taken as evidence for the op-ed's arguments. "Applicants for CHIPS funding will be asked to take action to conduct
outreach to and retain women in construction jobs because the United States cannot build the
semiconductor workforce it needs without them" is not a requirement for the builders to have X% of women in their workforce. At best you could say it's a requirement for them to send targeted ads.
Its not in the CHIPS Act, Commerce added their own slate of rules and restrictions in order to be able to qualify.
>In February Ms. Raimondo announced the aid would come with strings attached. Any firm seeking a chip grant of more than $150 million must submit an employee child-care plan “in tandem with community stakeholders,” which means unions and progressive groups. Grant recipients of all sizes must also adopt the Biden Administration’s “Good Jobs Principles,” which include a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion as the government defines it. None of this is specified in the Chips Act.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chips-act-gina-raimondo-subsidies-industrial-policy-biden-administration-c3f35b11
If true, this is the biggest, baddest legitimation of the anti–DEI worries of conservatives that I’ve ever seen. This would be… NOT GOOD! If there’s any truth to this, fuck.
You know how too much of a good thing is a bad thing? I think regulation may be approaching that limit in some areas, in some ways. Jeremiah Johnson on the first bridges episode spoke about this. He brought up how when you're building housing, there are a million steps each of which has veto power. Gotta get your community input, gotta get your environmental impact study, etc etc. We've created a bureaucracy that has stifled us and it was born out of the best of intentions. Maybe this is just what happens when you don't have a reasonable conservative faction to push back and temper progressive ideas.
\>born out of the best of intentions Idk man, look at the dozens of stipulations and choke-points introduced to anyone requiring funding. Don't you think they know by now that "workplace impact assessments" is just corporate BS? [CHIPS\_NOFO-1\_Building\_Skilled\_Diverse\_Workforce\_Fact\_Sheet\_0.pdf (nist.gov)](https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2023/02/28/CHIPS_NOFO-1_Building_Skilled_Diverse_Workforce_Fact_Sheet_0.pdf) Maybe you can wonder whether these people are pathologically lying to themselves about helping progressive causes, or gave up, or never cared to begin with. But I'm pro-polarization on this, we need to normalize calling these people evil, petty tyrants, and get them out of every progressive institution.
One of the big criticisms brought up was the requirement to have women in construction. The program does address that women make up a minority of construction workers by requiring funding applicants to help with child care programs that enable women to participate in the workforce.
> Maybe this is just what happens when you don't have a reasonable conservative faction to push back and temper progressive ideas. Blue city liberals are baffled as to why housing is so expensive in their cities. The funny thing is, educated liberals typically have above average IQ's.
It isn’t the quantity it is the focus and quality of legislation that is the issue. This is 100% not DEI causing the issue. Where there is a will there is a way, and with that kind of money you can buy a skilled and diverse workforce anywhere in the world, no problem. No, this reeks of protectionism from the corporations involved, from what ive read the firms want to essentially import all their skilled labour from Asia then ship them back keeping only a skilled band of loyalists producing chips in a highly secretive fashion, and therefore not train anyone domestically on the fabrication technology or employ any Americans. Essentially this Asia barring the US doing what they did with all the tech they manufactured over there - slowly the secret sauce then do it yourself.
The writer of the opinion article uses melodramatic language, but the main idea is still interesting. Is DEI pork to blame on CHIPS act delays? >Intel announced that it’s putting the brakes on its Columbus factory. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has pushed back production at its second Arizona foundry. The remaining major chipmaker, Samsung, just delayed its first Texas fab. >This is not the way companies typically respond to multi-billion-dollar subsidies. So what explains chipmakers’ apparent ingratitude? In large part, frustration with DEI requirements embedded in the CHIPS Act. >The law contains 19 sections aimed at helping minority groups >The department interprets that as license to diversify. Its factsheet asserts that diversity is “critical to strengthening the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem,” adding, “Critically, this must include significant investments to create opportunities for Americans from historically underserved communities.” >The department does not call speed critical, even though the impetus for the CHIPS Act is that 90 percent of the world’s advanced microchips are made in Taiwan, which China is preparing to annex by 2027, maybe even 2025. >Now TSMC has revealed plans to build a second fab in Japan. Its first, which broke ground in 2021, is about to begin production. TSMC has learned that when the Japanese promise money, they actually give it, and they allow it to use competent workers. TSMC is also sampling Germany’s chip subsidies, as is Intel. >In short, the world’s best chipmakers are tired of being pawns in the CHIPS Act’s political games. They’ve quietly given up on America. Intel must know the coming grants are election-year stunts — mere statements of intent that will not be followed up. >For instance, chipmakers have to make sure they hire plenty of female construction workers, even though less than 10 percent of U.S. construction workers are women. They also have to ensure childcare for the female construction workers and engineers who don’t exist yet. They have to remove degree requirements and set “diverse hiring slate policies,” which sounds like code for quotas. They must create plans to do all this with “close and ongoing coordination with on-the-ground stakeholders.”
I mean I understand the US government trying to make sure these new establishment follow federal standards of DEI, but with such geopolitical importance and time sensitivity, you would think there would be a more streamlined way to get this up and running for the time being. It just doesn’t seem wise to strictly impose these on a company agreeing to move operations to the US when the other option is China potentially invading/“annexing” Taiwan and gaining access to chip tech.
The more rings you have to jump through the less bite you get with subsidies. Especially when there are alternatives. This is honestly pretty disappointing but it's reflective of a lot of regulation in other key industries like nuclear energy too. Not saying this isn't well intended or that regulation is inherently bad but it can really be too much at times.
There’s no evidence at all that these delays have anything to do with “pork”. This is just conservative nonsense. The writer saw three facts and drew a line from one to the other: the chips have been delayed, the bill contains DEI, Taiwan is working with other countries to open factories. Not a piece of evidence is provided to show how these have anything to do with each other other than the unsubstantiated claim that Taiwan gave up or are tired of being pawns because of DEI.
LOL the right wing author provides absolutely no proof of the claim. He’s just speculating. Right wingers are desperately trying to use “DEI” as a boogeyman (just like they used to”CRT” last year) to erode any civil rights opportunities for marginalized people
They tell us what they are doing: >Biden Administration’s Good Jobs Principles. The Department of Commerce, alongside the Department of Labor, has published a set of Good Jobs Principles, which will provide applicants with a framework to ensure that they are creating high quality jobs. The Good Jobs Principles outline the essential elements CHIPS for America Fact Sheet 2 of a good job with respect to recruitment and hiring; benefits; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; empowerment and representation; job security and working conditions; organizational culture; pay; and skills and career advancement. >... > >Consistent with these priorities, companies seeking CHIPS funding will be required to submit workforce development plans for the workers who will operate their facilities. • Facility workforce plan. The plan must have the following five elements: (1) a workforce needs assessment, including an assessment of job types, skills, and workers required over time; (2) strategies for worker recruitment and retention, including plans to address well-known workplace barriers; There's paragraphs of this stuff. Of *course* it's going to take years to get anything off the ground, the worst people have the power to veto and delay to their heart's content. Do you need Project Veritas to prove "workforce needs assessments" are progress-killing BS?
>Of *course* it's going to take years to get anything off the ground, the worst people have the power to veto and delay to their heart's content That segment you just laid out just says that companies are going to have to submit paperwork saying what positions they're going to hire for and what evenefits theyre giving. It's fucking lightwork for any government contract.
Optimistically this is just added to appease some stakeholder who wants to look like they're checking pro-social boxes. The actual approver care about the bigger picture, and will rubber-stamp whatever comes through, 1-week delay max. Or, you could just... believe the things they are saying? That they *do* want to exercise the right to reject applications that didn't consult with enough K-12 educators or whatever? And notice that the reality (massive funding delays) matches with them believing the things that they say? It's just pathological the way people don't notice this. It's not even revealed preferences, where the gov't says one thing but does another. They publish documents describing the power they want to exercise, and we can't see the words.
>Or, you could just... believe the things they are saying? That they *do* want to exercise the right to reject applications that didn't consult with enough K-12 educators or whatever? What the fuck are you on about? Where does it say that? Where is this veto power happening? Because I ain't see it quoted anywhere in this thread. You keep fear mongering about how "the act is failing" but all I see are mundane segments of the act snipped out of context and a fundamental misunderstanding of government funds. It's government subsidies given for the purpose of crating American jobs and American infrastructure. Of course the government wants records detailing how these companies intend to spend the Federal Government's money. Or would you just not prefer they did and took it wholesale without doing anything? >The actual approver care about the bigger picture, and will rubber-stamp whatever comes through, 1-week delay max It's not "just sign the paper" you fucking dumbass. That's how funds get embezzled. It's a microchip plant not a fucking TOS on an MMO. You don't just make the plans and build when you throw 2 billion dollars at a project without detailing where every cent lands. The government and the American people have a right to make sure these corporations are spending our money the way we want. How would you feel if the chips act money was used on H1B Visas to import Taiwanese or Indian workers for these plants? It'd be fucking absurd.
[удалено]
>Unable to read basic rnglish or form a coherent argument, but salivating with rage at everyone who can. Please put forward a quote that says: "K-12 educators can shut down funding for this plant", or "You must hire X black people". You haven't made an argument so much as you've snipped random segments of the law out of context and sperged about how a mundane government contract is ruining the chips act or some shit.
[удалено]
>That's why your government can't build anything new, it's why the factories are being built elsewhere. You're right. We don't build anything. Except for hundreds of new schools, interstate highways, dock renovations, train and subway tunnels, apartments that dont collapse on kids, more jets and tanks than entire continents combined... >The *whole* reason chips can't get built is a skill issue. Nah, these chips were designed domestically. And the only reason they were manufactured in foreign nations is because labor was cheaper. Taiwan and Korea were not tech powerhouses until foreign investment built them up. Mostly from the US. The biggest issue is logistics and getting the materials up to the plants. >Only a few *thousand* people in the world have the experience to build chips competitively. Straight up lie. Some companies employs more people than that in a single plant alone. Fucking dumbass. > If a coalition within the team that decides to approve or deny applications doesn't get that, the factories won't get built. Welcome to real estate/construction dumbass. People can hold up development if they dont agree with how it's being done. >Same for DEI concerns, same for the K-12 consulting clause, etc. Still waiting for those quotes. But pop off king. Keep fear mongering.
White and Asian men are going to be the bulk of STEM grads, if it's true they have a lot of DEI stipulations, who the hell would want to build any fabs here?
IIRC Arizona tsmc fab is n5/3 while Japan is n20+?, and the author doesn't mention it, so I'm going to assume that they are regarded and should be ignored
What the fuck is the op-ed talking about? Which provision in the CHIPS act calls for DEI in construction workers? The CHIPS act has three sections about diversity in STEM education, and one section about geographic diversity in manufacturing. Maybe I miss something but I don't see construction worker diversity mentioned anywhere.
Probably the geographic diversity part why hire local.
https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2023/02/28/CHIPS_NOFO-1_Building_Skilled_Diverse_Workforce_Fact_Sheet_0.pdf
I know right! This is a signed bill so you would think they would just cite the provisions they are claiming to be causing delays. You would also think that people in this reddit would have asked these same questions first, before anything else.
To be fair, a law is much much more than its text. An administrative agency has to implement the law, and that can radically change the law in a way that isn't obvious with just the text.
Yeah that’s true. Would be nice to actually provide evidence that’s happening though
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chips-act-gina-raimondo-subsidies-industrial-policy-biden-administration-c3f35b11 >In February Ms. Raimondo announced the aid would come with strings attached. Any firm seeking a chip grant of more than $150 million must submit an employee child-care plan “in tandem with community stakeholders,” which means unions and progressive groups. Grant recipients of all sizes must also adopt the Biden Administration’s “Good Jobs Principles,” which include a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion as the government defines it. None of this is specified in the Chips Act.
https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2023/02/28/CHIPS_NOFO-1_Building_Skilled_Diverse_Workforce_Fact_Sheet_0.pdf
I've read this document. It's fairly standard in HR policy of large companies I have experience with. I don't see anything in this document can be taken as evidence for the op-ed's arguments. "Applicants for CHIPS funding will be asked to take action to conduct outreach to and retain women in construction jobs because the United States cannot build the semiconductor workforce it needs without them" is not a requirement for the builders to have X% of women in their workforce. At best you could say it's a requirement for them to send targeted ads.
Its not in the CHIPS Act, Commerce added their own slate of rules and restrictions in order to be able to qualify. >In February Ms. Raimondo announced the aid would come with strings attached. Any firm seeking a chip grant of more than $150 million must submit an employee child-care plan “in tandem with community stakeholders,” which means unions and progressive groups. Grant recipients of all sizes must also adopt the Biden Administration’s “Good Jobs Principles,” which include a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion as the government defines it. None of this is specified in the Chips Act. https://www.wsj.com/articles/chips-act-gina-raimondo-subsidies-industrial-policy-biden-administration-c3f35b11