For tech and media companies, much of the money went towards building R&D centers, relocations of corporate offices and office campuses in certain states.
Not all such payments are though well received. Back in December, a subsidy to Apple from North Carolina, where the company is building a new campus, was branded 2021’s “Worst Economic Development Deal of the Year” by the Center for Economic Accountability (CEA). The arrangement is worth over US$846 million. John Mozena, president of the CEA, said:
A billion dollars is a lot of money for North Carolina’s taxpayers and communities, because that’s a billion dollars’ worth of public services not being funded. But for a company like Apple, which reported more than a billion dollars a day in revenues this past year, it isn’t anywhere near enough money to move the needle on a major site selection decision.
Seems none of this went toward any sort of manufacturing capacity. Furthermore, the article mentions Samsung received $1.2B in subsidies already from state and local governments, roughly in line with what they’d be receiving from the CHIPS Act. Of course they’re not a charity, but how is 1% of funding holding back the entire project if they’re paying the other 99% out of their own pocket? As I said originally, this is just a convenient cover to deflect away from their own poor performance as a company and put the onus on the government.
I already explained that TSMC can’t get their fab running because they don’t want to pay US wages to contractors and employees. This has been widely reported on already.
There you go. So for Samsung too a similar reason is more likely. A Fab would require workers, land, supply chain, and so on. Subsidies are only one part of the equation, and if any other part is unattractive then more subsidies would be needed.
You need to understand that the reason CHIPS Act exists in the first place is to make it attractive for companies to set up fabs in the US. If the US was already attractive, the CHIPS Act wouldn’t be necessary.
Seems none of this went toward any sort of manufacturing capacity. Furthermore, the article mentions Samsung received $1.2B in subsidies already from state and local governments, roughly in line with what they’d be receiving from the CHIPS Act. Of course they’re not a charity, but how is 1% of funding holding back the entire project if they’re paying the other 99% out of their own pocket? As I said originally, this is just a convenient cover to deflect away from their own poor performance as a company and put the onus on the government.
Then explain TSMC doing the same. It is more believable that the subsidies aren’t enough to make manufacturing attractive and more needs to be done.
I already explained that TSMC can’t get their fab running because they don’t want to pay US wages to contractors and employees. This has been widely reported on already.
There you go. So for Samsung too a similar reason is more likely. A Fab would require workers, land, supply chain, and so on. Subsidies are only one part of the equation, and if any other part is unattractive then more subsidies would be needed.
You need to understand that the reason CHIPS Act exists in the first place is to make it attractive for companies to set up fabs in the US. If the US was already attractive, the CHIPS Act wouldn’t be necessary.