←back to thread

TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

(www.reuters.com)
437 points adventured | 4 comments | 15 May 21 00:49 UTC | HN request time: 3.663s | source
Show context
neonological ◴[15 May 21 01:31 UTC] No.27161465[source]▶
You guys ever wonder why they don't choose California? These factories have huge environmental impacts that California is not okay with. These factories produce massive amounts of waste that cannot be recycled. This is also very likely to be the same exact reason as to why these talks didn't go so well in Europe.

Arizona like Texas is more business friendly at the expense of not looking out for the well being of people who live in these locations. Ironically, right now by being more business friendly more people want to move to places like Arizona or Texas for jobs.

It's a strange balancing act that has a lot of potential for being over corrected for. Industry brings business and economic growth but ruins the environment and has harms the people living in the area. The insidious thing is environmental costs are paid for much much later.

The consequences of being way to business friendly in these places may only be apparent a decade from now just like how the price of being too business unfriendly is now very apparent in California.

replies(5): >>27161511 #>>27161559 #>>27161644 #>>27161744 #>>27161969 #
oogabooga123 ◴[15 May 21 02:06 UTC] No.27161644[source]▶
> Ironically, right now by being more business friendly more people want to move to places like Arizona or Texas for jobs.

This isn’t “ironically”, this is literally the primary argument in favor of this policy angle.

replies(2): >>27161689 #>>27162198 #
neonological ◴[15 May 21 02:17 UTC] No.27161689[source]▶
The entire purpose of business regulation is to protect the people.

People choosing to give up this protection is the irony.

For example. Tobacco kills people. Government looks out for the interests of the people and regulates Big Tobacco. So Big Tobacco moves to a place where it is unregulated and free to distribute tobacco even to minors. People "IRONICALLY" against their own self interest follow the company because of jobs and money.

The above is just an example made really obvious. For semiconductors it's not so obvious. What exactly is the harm? It's not so evident, you need to do research to find out.

replies(2): >>27161962 #>>27161981 #
1. nradov ◴[15 May 21 03:08 UTC] No.27161962[source]▶
Nanny states are far worse than tobacco.
replies(1): >>27162010 #
2. 29athrowaway ◴[15 May 21 03:17 UTC] No.27162010[source]▶
Before "nanny state" regulations, food used to be sold in a decomposed or rotten state, it was exposed to all sorts of contamination and merchants mixed it with all sorts of non-food such as wood. Having weird digestive illnesses was very common back in the day, as well as dying from them.

Before "nanny state" regulations, you would work as much as your employer wanted you to work, you had no sick days, no vacation, no parental leave, no anything. Kids used to work in factories. If a woman got pregnant she would get fired from her job. If you got injured or sick at work then you would get fired as well.

Before "nanny state" regulations, medications were usually snake oil. The market was full of elixirs and magical tonics for well-being that were ultimately a scam.

Before "nanny state" regulations, you were free to dump any chemical you wanted anywhere you wanted. You were free to experiment with any animal you wanted in any way you wanted without any ethical or humane consideration whatsoever. You were free to scam any investor you wanted in any way you wanted... and you get the idea. Restaurant with rats? that was perfectly too.

"Nanny state" is one of the most profoundly idiotic terms ever coined. Some regulations can be annoying, but clearly we are better off now than 100 years ago.

replies(1): >>27162302 #
3. zaroth ◴[15 May 21 04:13 UTC] No.27162302[source]▶
That things are better than they were is not particularly strong evidence supporting the “nanny state”.

I absolutely agree we are better off now than 100 years ago.

replies(1): >>27163648 #
4. neonological ◴[15 May 21 09:13 UTC] No.27163648{3}[source]▶
You can never find strong evidence for this. A nanny state is just a state that is "overprotective." How protective something is to the point of being overprotective is completely a matter of opinion. Some people think the US is overprotective some people think it's under protective. It's a matter of opinion as the definition of over protective doesn't have a threshold set.

One thing is for sure though on the exact topics mentioned by the post you replied to. I am glad the United States is highly highly protective on these issues. I want these issues to be nanny'd to death and you do to unless you're down to face the consequences.

Characterizing it as "better off" is just word play. There is definitely more nuance here.