Re:Intel Posts Largest Loss in Its History as Sales Plunge 36%
by BeetleB on Friday April 28, 2023 @11:30AM
(#35742468)
People in this thread are a bit clueless on the economics of it.
Many of Intel's existing fabs are in the US, and they've never really stopped building them here - particularly in Oregon and Arizona, and they continue to build there. The only difference is that now they're building on yet another site. The bulk of their fab process R&D is in the US, and they perfect the flow for a given process here and their international fabs then follow suit.
Why do they continue to build in the US? The CEO answered this over and over during his campaign for the CHIPS act: Running fabs is significantly more expensive than labor costs. They don't really save that much by building abroad.
When it comes to cheaper things like packaging, the labor costs do matter, and so they do that abroad.
So no, Ohio won't be foxconned. If Intel doesn't do well, Ohio will be dead, but they're not going to build elsewhere to save on costs. There isn't much to save.
Many of Intel's existing fabs are in the US, and they've never really stopped building them here - particularly in Oregon and Arizona, and they continue to build there. The only difference is that now they're building on yet another site. The bulk of their fab process R&D is in the US, and they perfect the flow for a given process here and their international fabs then follow suit.
Why do they continue to build in the US? The CEO answered this over and over during his campaign for the CHIPS act: Running fabs is significantly more expensive than labor costs. They don't really save that much by building abroad.
When it comes to cheaper things like packaging, the labor costs do matter, and so they do that abroad.
So no, Ohio won't be foxconned. If Intel doesn't do well, Ohio will be dead, but they're not going to build elsewhere to save on costs. There isn't much to save.