Big Tech and Lobby: Semiconductors in America Coalition (SIAC) Founded With Microsoft, Apple, Intel, AMD, TSMC, Others

[Raevenlord]

Since lobbying is both legal and regulated in the US (an attempt to bring attempts of influencing political power by corporations under legal boundaries, as opposed to being done in the dark), it feels like it was only a matter of time before big tech attempted to join under one banner. As such, the Semiconductors in America Coalition (SIAC) has now been put together, and boasts of 64 members including Microsoft, Apple, TSMC, Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Arm, and Samsung. It seems that all of these companies - which are often at odds with one another when it comes to competing for consumers' choice and money - have found enough similarities to get organized in an attempt to nudge political power in their favor.

SIAC said in a press release that its mission is to "advance federal policies that promote semiconductor manufacturing and research in the U.S. to strengthen America's economy, national security, and critical infrastructure." The first announcement from the SIAC following its foundation was its intention to support the CHIPS for America Act. The Act (supported by The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) and President Joe Biden) has already been approved by the House and the Senate as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2021 but has not yet been funded. It seems that SIAC's first mission is to get the government to open up its $50 billion-deep pockets.





The Coalition penned a letter to US Congressional Leaders: "The current shortage of semiconductors is impacting a broad range of industries throughout the economy. To address this problem in the short term, government should refrain from intervening as industry works to correct the current supply-demand imbalance causing the shortage. But for the longer term, robust funding of the CHIPS Act would help America build the additional capacity necessary to have more resilient supply chains to ensure critical technologies will be there when we need them. Manufacturing incentives funded by Congress should focus on filling key gaps in our domestic semiconductor ecosystem and cover the full range of semiconductor technologies and process nodes - from legacy to leading-edge - relied on by industry, the military, and critical infrastructure."



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[voltage]

oh the good old days when chips were made in the US, Motorola and Texas instruments are two that come to mind. thank bill clinton and obama for ESSENTAILLY pushing them out. too much to type why, but the start of NAFTA started the downslide of US manufacturing forever. sad people are so dumb and continue to support those articulate idiots.

 

[Why_Me]

6 Hidden Benefits of NAFTA

The six advantages of NAFTA included quadrupling of trade, boosting growth, and cutting costs. Learn recent statistics for all six benefits.

www.thebalance.com

Facts say otherwise. Where do you get your info, the cheeto king?

US jobs headed south across the border after NAFTA. I lived it.

 

[erocker]

US jobs headed south across the border after NAFTA. I lived it.

And before that they were moving from the north to the southern states for cheaper labor. They just follow the money.

 

[evernessince]

US jobs headed south across the border after NAFTA. I lived it.

Well for starters, it's not realistic for any one person to measure the net loss or gain of jobs. You are just fashioning a reality based on your pre-concieved biases. It's not something that's realistically possible for a single person to measure.

Second, it's widely accepted by economists that NAFTA had a net positive impact on the US economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Third, the US was loosing jobs long before NAFTA was drafted to offshoring. To say NAFTA is solely responsible with nothing but anecdotal evidence is nothing short of ridiculous. A convenient scapegoat. Economies aren't so simple.

 

[zlobby]

It is over, bois.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

It is over, bois.

Yep. Thats all we need more of now, politicians in the pockets of big business, pivot pals if you will.

 

[1d10t]

SIAC said in a press release that its mission is to "advance federal policies that promote semiconductor manufacturing and research in the U.S. to strengthen America's economy, national security, and critical infrastructure."

In another words, spreading democracy through technology? *wink-wink the dictator*

 

[TristanX]

currently SIAC means: Semoconductors In Asia Collitiion. Samsung, TSMC, SKHynix, and others rules.
Intel and US Govt won't change this, Asians are too smart and too cheap.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Well for starters, it's not realistic for any one person to measure the net loss or gain of jobs. You are just fashioning a reality based on your pre-concieved biases. It's not something that's realistically possible for a single person to measure.

Second, it's widely accepted by economists that NAFTA had a net positive impact on the US economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Third, the US was loosing jobs long before NAFTA was drafted to offshoring. To say NAFTA is solely responsible with nothing but anecdotal evidence is nothing short of ridiculous. A convenient scapegoat. Economies aren't so simple.

*losing, not loosing.

Also, a gain for the US economy is great, but that comes with its own disclaimers. The 1% gained a tremendous amount of wealth thanks to NAFTA, at the expense of the middle class. The US losing jobs to outsourcing before NAFTA is whataboutism, it doesnt change the fact that the tide of outsorcing was made dramatically worse by the passing of NAFTA.

And before that they were moving from the north to the southern states for cheaper labor. They just follow the money.

Moiving from one part of the US to another is a bit different then moving out of the US altogether. One, you may note, results in taxbases moving within the country, the other results in taxbases leaving the country. The latter is much more destructive in terms of effects on the middle class, americans were not going to move en masse to mexico to work for $2 an hour. Keeping the jobs in country provided at least a baseline of QoL and job expectations that countries like mexico didnt fall under.

 

[the54thvoid]

NAFTA was conceived in the eighties and signed into law in 1994. It was signed by Bush and ratified by Clinton. Now that's balance.

By all accounts, it was a bad deal for all with conditions set, private courts to sue over disputes, and other ramifications that went unnoticed until it happened

 

[evernessince]

*losing, not loosing.

Also, a gain for the US economy is great, but that comes with its own disclaimers. The 1% gained a tremendous amount of wealth thanks to NAFTA, at the expense of the middle class. The US losing jobs to outsourcing before NAFTA is whataboutism, it doesnt change the fact that the tide of outsorcing was made dramatically worse by the passing of NAFTA.

You need to learn what whataboutism is:

"the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."

I rebuttaled the point that the US economy lost jobs as a result of NAFTA with the fact that the US has been loosing jobs long before NAFTA. That's not whataboutism, that's directly responding to the point.

On the other hand your comment is in fact whataboutism:

"The 1% gained a tremendous amount of wealth thanks to NAFTA"

You move the goal posts here by raising a completely different issue. Classic case of whataboutism. This isn't a rebuttle to the comment I made, it's a distraction. You ironically avoid actually rebutting my job trend comment by calling it whataboutism.


"The US losing jobs to outsourcing before NAFTA is whataboutism, it doesnt change the fact that the tide of outsorcing was made dramatically worse by the passing of NAFTA."

Again another comment made without an iota of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making the argument, of which all I've seen in this thread is a bunch of people making claims with jack diddly to back them up.

 

[Why_Me]

You need to learn what whataboutism is:

"the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."

I rebuttaled the point that the US economy lost jobs as a result of NAFTA with the fact that the US has been loosing jobs long before NAFTA. That's not whataboutism, that's directly responding to the point.

On the other hand your comment is in fact whataboutism:

"The 1% gained a tremendous amount of wealth thanks to NAFTA"

You move the goal posts here by raising a completely different issue. Classic case of whataboutism. This isn't a rebuttle to the comment I made, it's a distraction. You ironically avoid actually rebutting my job trend comment by calling it whataboutism.


"The US losing jobs to outsourcing before NAFTA is whataboutism, it doesnt change the fact that the tide of outsorcing was made dramatically worse by the passing of NAFTA."

Again another comment made without an iota of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making the argument, of which all I've seen in this thread is a bunch of people making claims with jack diddly to back them up.

Tell that to the auto workers who saw their jobs head south.

 

[R-T-B]

Tell that to the auto workers who saw their jobs head south.

He uses factual statistics, you use ancedotes from nameless people from one select market we're supposed to talk to?

Seriously?

 

[Why_Me]

He uses factual statistics, you use ancedotes from nameless people we're supposed to talk to?

Seriously?

I'm 57 and as far as I know I haven't had a recent lobotomy. The US auto industry moved a load of work to Mexico for cheap labor after NAFTA came into effect.

 

[R-T-B]

I'm 57 and as far as I know I haven't had a recent lobotomy. The US auto industry moved a load of work to Mexico for cheap labor after NAFTA came into effect.

Why are you focusing exclusively on auto then would be my next question?

 

[Why_Me]

Why are you focusing exclusively on auto then would be my next question?

You think the auto industry was the only industry moving US jobs to Mexico after NAFTA. The only people who were big on NAFTA were shareholders and desk jockey's.

https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/nafta_factsheet_deficit_jobs_wages_feb_2018_final.pdf

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

You think the auto industry was the only industry moving US jobs to Mexico after NAFTA. The only people who were big on NAFTA were shareholders and desk jockey's.

https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/nafta_factsheet_deficit_jobs_wages_feb_2018_final.pdf

is that before or after Trump got his paws on it?

I'm 57 and as far as I know I haven't had a recent lobotomy. The US auto industry moved a load of work to Mexico for cheap labor after NAFTA came into effect.

They moved from Canada as well.

I had friends in Detroit that lost auto-jobs over nafta, and I recall a large union strike too. I also remember workers milking the unemployment system down to the last day as a useless way of fighting back.

 

[R-T-B]

You think the auto industry was the only industry moving US jobs to Mexico after NAFTA. The only people who were big on NAFTA were shareholders and desk jockey's.

https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/nafta_factsheet_deficit_jobs_wages_feb_2018_final.pdf

So why not use generalized statistics to establish a trend, like your debate partner here just did? Why cherry pick jobs that "lost" to fit your argument?

The trend wasn't one of jobs lost from NAFTA, from what I could see.

 

[Why_Me]

So why not use generalized statistics to establish a trend, like your debate partner here just did? Why cherry pick jobs that "lost" to fit your argument?

The trend wasn't one of jobs lost from NAFTA, from what I could see.

Not exactly sure what you want from me. A lot of US manufacturing jobs among others went south across the border after NAFTA came into effect.