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

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.

I don't really like the euphemism of "business friendly" when it means "companies don't have to pay for their externalities."

California is extremely entrepreneur-friendly, and have absolutely massive amounts of business compare to Arizona or Texas.

The externalities are not minor either, there are 23 superfund sites in Santa Clara county from Silicon Valley's early years, where they did not bother to properly dispose of waste:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/09/silic...

>California is extremely entrepreneur-friendly, and have absolutely massive amounts of business compare to Arizona or Texas.

I don't know if you've been following the news lately of a bunch of companies moving OUT of California to Texas. One of these people is Elon Musk. And guess what? I have a source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez90rXhMWjE

I'm not saying California is wrong. Far from it. They're right. These laws are made to protect the people. Like you said, it's not minor at all. I never said it was minor.

However ANY state can decide that economic growth is more important than environmental safety and short term health of its' citizens and make a strategic move to make it's own location much more attractive to business.

So the costs aren't clear. Do we want an economic wasteland or an environmental wasteland? This is my point. California is not dead yet, but the trends have been pointing in this direction for years.

The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous. It does have its problems: costs are high and there's extreme inequality (because of the nation's worst land taxation and land use policies combined, read your Henry George folks).

But these problems are because of its extreme prosperity and economic potential, not because there is any risk of that economic powerhouse stopping.

The news reports are anecdotal, Musk is keeping California business but expanding production throughout the country, just as Tesla was before.

Companies that are leaving are those that are less innovative and have fallen from the top of the value chain. They can no longer benefit from the extremely productive environment, but can scrape by with lower costs, such as Oracle.

There's no need to sacrifice California's environment to continue to be an absolutely massive economic powerhouse. But we may need to sacrifice some of our bad ideas about land.