I don't think that dynamic is the same in construction and in semiconductor manufacturing. Certain parts of the chip-building supply chain just plain don't exist in the USA, and so no one in the USA currently has those skills. It's not like there are lots of folks with the skills in the USA but they're all leaving the industry for higher paying jobs.

The reason there are not a lot of folks with the skills in the USA is because 30 years ago, the US labor market did not appropriately reward those parts of the chip building supply chain. Same dynamic as not paying construction workers enough, just with a greater time lag.

I think the distinction is still important, in that the time lag is large enough to have changed the current dynamics, even if they still match on longer timescales. Raising salaries a bit could stem the outflow of construction workers, and raising salaries sufficiently could bring folks like the prior commenter back into the industry. But as more time passes this gets less and less effective, because there's no one left in the industry to retain and no one with recent enough knowledge to pull back in.

What skills are they, specifically? I'd like to see companies like Intel make a resource describing them, at least, and at most, offer to pay training costs and offer a job at the end of it.

The type of work does matter. If I had the choice between a low-pay office job and a low-pay physical labor job, many would pick the office.

That depends. When I was young and the weather was nice the physical labor job sounded really nice. However physical labor also means when it is -1C and raining, or 40C with no clouds. Now that I'm older my body isn't willing to do that and the office job is a lot nicer (but my doctor keeps telling me to stay active)

You, sure.

Half the dudes in my high school class couldn’t manage to write a coherent 5 paragraph essay, so low pay office work is not really an option for them.

Not saying this with snark, but how many of those former peers work for companies with a clear pipeline to train people? Usually when I hear complaints like "We can't hire or keep good help" it's correlated with a company who isn't willing to invest in developing their workforce.

Not sure where in construction he was, but I've worked framing crews before, and the boss would hire anybody (not disabled) who said they were willing to work hard. It isn't hard to teach someone the basic tasks and most people could catch on in just an hour. Most people though realized it was physically hard work and quit in a week (even though this should be obvious).

Plumbers and electricians have a good start from nothing apprentice program. They are sometimes hard to get into, but I know a few people who have gotten in over the years.

If you are training people and they aren’t staying, isn’t the implication that you aren’t paying them enough? Those union apprenticeships are often hard to come by because 1) they pay quite well compared to other viable options and 2) people don't want to leave because of #1. If the job is demanding, the pay should be commensurate. The exception is if it’s rewarding on some other axis (e.g., socially).

To be clear, I'm not saying we can't have this skilled workforce. Merely that we don't have it today. So the pipeline to employ Americans for these jobs is going to require increasing the funnel of people who learn the skills, become junior engineers, learn more on the job, then become senior engineers. That's a long pipeline to beef up the numbers.

I'm waiting for those job postings of "Junior Engineer with 5 years of experience minimum" in companies with zero pipeline of in-house training.

It really doesn't matter - show me a DEI scheme that has actually had success and didn't revert to saying "it's the funnel"

Depends on what the measure of success is, if your goal is to subvert an institution from what it used to do to woke communist activism or kill it then there are many examples.

From the top of my head; Disney,Boeing, Google, nearly all universities.

If you goal is to skillfully execute on what the company used to do, then yes there are no examples I am aware of.

You’re likely being downvoted for posting an opinion piece with zero supporting evidence.

Then the right response is, e.g.

“Do you have any evidence that the CHIPS act require DEI?”

Yes, see the relevant sections here: https://x.com/bonchieredstate/status/1766467529151557788?s=4...

“Do you have any evidence that DEI distributes outcomes to favored activist identities?”

A summary: https://youtu.be/n0fpeiFNWMY?si=eiCnRL0LX8RhOlxI

Happy to provide evidence from woke literature if you are interested in evidence of any aspect of how it works. They are pretty straightforward about it, but incredibly wordy.

Those are extremely biased, to put it mildly. Also random YouTube videos are not scientific evidence.

DEI has become a new conservative talking point but so far I haven't seen any evidence that such programs do anything to restrict hiring "white and Asian male[s]" as you put it. I've noticed some people complaining about what they imagine DEI means which is just the same old "affirmative action" complaints recycled.

I'm not saying there are not some cases of DEI-induced discrimination - the world is wide after all - but that isn't what DEI policies/programs say in their text or how they're intended to work. I have never seen anyone saying we should lower standards to meet some kind of "quota".

Again I want to point out that the numerous conservative attacks on affirmative action constantly claimed it was a quota system despite that being a flat-out lie. That makes me skeptical about this current round of conservatives blaming everything from the airline pilot shortage to fab personnel issues on "DEI".

You are trying to dismiss my claim by making a moral claim about your opponents instead of formulating an argument for why my claim is wrong or an inquiry.

To your claim there is no evidence. Here are some videos of top executives saying DEI enforce hiring & performance outcomes using Marxist oppressor/oppressed hierarchies:

—- CEO of IBM @ArvindKrishna admits to using coercion to fire people and take away their bonuses unless they discriminate in the hiring process.

“You got to move both forward by a percentage that leads to a plus on your bonus," Krishna said about hiring Hispanics, "and by the way if you lose, you lose part of your bonus.” https://x.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1734374423124176944?s=46

—- Carole Huntsman, Former Senior VP at Sanofi Pharma: “One in five hires NEEDS to be a black employee for us to meet our goals” … “One in ten HAS to be a Latinx employee.” https://x.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1737986459007590636?s=46

You could just link to the relevant sections of the bill.

So is every black or hispanic person trying to get a job in tech or maybe thinking of going back to school to get another degree is a closet communist trying to… destroy institutions? Asking for a friend.

Either you can cherry-pick non-white candidates among the US population or you can claim that there aren't enough skilled candidates in the US and hire H-1Bs from abroad - you cannot have both. Beggars cannot be choosers.

Yes and:

Record corporate profits while wages stagnated. Coincidence?

Is American labor really more expensive? Really?

Or do American workers simply have the unforgivable expectation of some kind of profit sharing?

(Yes, yes, yes. CoL in the economically important parts of America is higher. Again, the root cause being windfall profits for the elite.)

Intel pays its employees very well. They also have generous vacation allotments, and paid sabbaticals every 4 years.

For the record I am not an Intel rep lol this is just based on my opinion & expedrience

Hope you’ll excuse the somewhat off-topic nature of my comment: I’d be curious in hearing your story how you transitioned into software development from construction - would you mind passing along contact information or reaching out to me? I’m in a similar boat and thinking long and hard about my options!