Labor is a market, which means that the only two possibilities are 1) the offered pay is too low, 2) literally nobody in the entire country exists with these skills (in which case, the company needs to pony up the money to train them).
Or 3) we are talking about real markets instead of spherical frictionless cows. The market will eventually balance itself, but it doesn't happen immediately.
Consider yourself (and your family, if you have any). Assuming that the pay is right, how long would it take for you to uproot your life and move to a faraway place where you don't know anyone. And how long would it take for you to familiarize yourself with the new job and become reasonably productive?
'Traditionally, semiconductor technician jobs required an associate degree. Dropping this educational requirement helps widen the talent pool amid the ramping up of a domestic supply chain, Pearson said. Employers are realizing that “as long as they just get the skills, they really don’t need the degree,” he said.'
I didn't mean temporary assignments. I meant a permanent relocation and everything that it involves. Leaving your former life permanently and building a new life in another place. And dealing with this not only for yourself, but also for your spouse, children, other family members, friends, and pets.
And once you start in your new job, you still need to familiarize yourself with it until your productivity reaches what was expected from you. After all, the goal is not just employing someone but getting them to make substantial net contributions towards the organization's goals.
They have to be able to sell chips at a competitive price.
In the extreme/absurd case they could pay each employee $1B/year and I’m sure they could find qualified people but they would immediately go out of business.
TSMC has a long history of increasing double digit profit margins, in the range of $10B+ per year, and is amongst the most profitable businesses in the world. I would err on the side of TSMC deciding not to pay sufficiently to incentivize labor (which may still be the optimal move for TSMC).
So thus, the right salary to hire the people they need is somewhere between what they're currently paying, and $1B/year. My guess—and this is only a guess, mind you—is that they'd still be able to staff up on something significantly lower than $1B. But I'm not an economist, so I might be wrong there.
Not OP, but here's a link to their job listings for AZ. I checked a few random job descriptions and none of them mentioned hourly wage/salary, which is usually a bad sign.
On an interesting note, I did notice the wording of what was said in the article was odd
> [...] skilled workers and technicians needed to move equipment into the facility.
> [...] specialized expertise required for equipment installation in a semiconductor-grade facility
This doesn't sound so much like the day-to-day factory work that they struggling to hire for, but more so something like: delivery of equipment, warehouse receiving, and equipment install & maintenance personnel.
Which is an even worse look for TSMC. They could easily do it, since they already do for other states, but they want to pay bottom dollar so much that they would rather retain that card (a relatively minor one for an employer) in their hand than play it.
Is Intel voluntarily disclosing in Ohio job listings? Nope.
Is Samsung voluntarily disclosing in Texas job listings? Nope.
A "worse look" argument simply has no basis in reality when this corporate behavior is effectively status quo across all relevant competitors in the industry.
I'm not saying such a thing isn't status quo, but simply that, if TSMC wishes to be perceived as "competitive", then an exceedingly easy way to that is to buck the status quo by listing their salary ranges - a competitive action. It seems disingenuous that they would prefer to have it both ways, to cry that they are struggling to attract/keep employees in those positions, yet choose not compete with other companies in that area, by listing information they aren't required to supply.
It just seems like that classic quote, "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas." That is what makes it a bad sign - they're excited to complain, but (apparently?) completely incompetent when it comes to fixing the problem they're in.
Relevant competitors would include higher paying software technology businesses because a smart enough person to work at TSMC doing advanced microchip work will instead choose to go into a different field.
The evidence is an informal thought experiment: if the salary was $100 million for each position, they would have every role filled. Therefore, there must exist a clearing price for each role between $0 and $100 million such that each role would be filled at or above it (and below which it would not be filled). If there are unfilled roles, it is because the role is below the clearing price.
EDIT: all other effects can be ameliorated eventually by paying more. If there isn’t enough specialized labor for the role, the unspecialized labor will be incentivized to specialize themselves. If there isn’t enough labor in the local market, they will move there.
> EDIT: all other effects can be ameliorated eventually by paying more. If there isn’t enough specialized labor for the role, the unspecialized labor will be incentivized to specialize themselves. If there isn’t enough labor in the local market, they will move there.
Proof in the pudding -- working at oil / gas / mining camps in Canada.
All you need is the ability to climb a ladder and be a proud 8th grade graduate; pay is $100k+ CAD, and often much higher for skilled or specialist roles with degrees and certs; easily 200k+ in some cases.
No shortage in finding bodies. Working conditions are brutal, long times away from home, and no shortage of Dear John letters, but there wasn't a shortage of labor.
When there is good $$$ on offer, people will line up around the block. Esp. if all it takes is a 2-week course at the local community college.
> The evidence is an informal thought experiment: if the salary was $100 million for each position, they would have every role filled.
If the salary was $100 million for each position they might fill every position--but could they keep them filled? If I were getting paid $100 million a year a single month's salary after taxes is enough to retire on at well above my current standard of living. I suspect it would be hard to retain people if they have the option to at any time quit and will never need to work again.
What happens after the position is filled doesn’t matter for this argument. The point is that there is a price that will cause somebody to say “this is a good deal for me” and fill the position. If there’s a better deal somewhere else, they’ll go do that instead.
