This week, Philip Wong, former chief scientist at TSMC and now a professor at Stanford University, tracked the employment destinations of his former doctoral students. He found that only 17% of them entered companies that actually manufacture chips, such as Intel (NASDAQ: INTC), Micron, Samsung, SK Hynix, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (NYSE: TSM); the vast majority went to work at chip design or chip application companies like Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Google, and Pinterest, or at other organizations such as McKinsey.
"They all have the ability to enter a cleanroom and, starting from a blank silicon wafer, produce working transistors or memory devices," he told me. "But most of them ultimately chose other industries." Why? "Higher pay, better career growth paths, greater job mobility, and a more attractive work environment." By contrast, he noted, in places like South Korea, semiconductor manufacturing companies are actually the most favored employers among job seekers.
Prominent columnist Gillian Tett believes U.S. politicians should pay attention to this phenomenon before Tuesday's midterm elections; investors who have been dazzled by tech stock rallies and the upcoming Anthropic IPO also need to take note.
After returning to power, Trump promised to bring chip production back to the United States to support AI development. Tett argues that in theory, this goal sounds wonderful. The White House has continued the CHIPS Act introduced by Democrats in 2022, providing subsidies for domestic chip production, even though Trump called the legislation "terrible" in 2025. The U.S. government also took a 10% equity stake in Intel (NASDAQ: INTC), while imposing high import tariffs on semiconductor manufacturing equipment to incentivize domestic factory construction. Meanwhile, companies like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (NYSE: TSM) have pledged more than $250 billion in new investments for U.S. wafer fab projects. Industrial policy appears to be back in vogue, which is something Trump has loudly touted.
But research by economists Ian Fletcher and Marc Fasteau shows that for industrial policy to work, it must be coordinated, holistic, and long-term; Trump's set of policies has none of these three qualities.
Then there is infrastructure. U.S. officials said this week at a global chip conference held at Oxford University that they plan to improve supporting infrastructure. But the event was filled with complaints: insufficient power supply, severe permitting delays, and a huge shortage of wafer fab workers. A recent report by McKinsey and industry organizations warned that engineers are the biggest constraint bottleneck, with the overall labor shortage reaching up to 157,000 workers. The report noted that "without targeted intervention measures, talent shortages may delay the commissioning of new wafer fabs." A congressional report also mentioned that labor and supply chain shortages have already forced Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (NYSE: TSM) and Micron to postpone previously announced factory plans in Arizona and New York.
Based on this, Tett analyzed feasible options. The first: follow Asia's example and introduce smart, long-term, coherent industrial policy. But this conflicts with traditional American ideology and the federal governance structure. In Arizona, for example, local officials are working to cultivate engineers through community colleges, but it is understood that getting competing chip companies to coordinate is extremely difficult.
The second: bring in overseas engineers. Reports show that such channels are already operating quietly. But Trump's MAGA base strongly opposes this, and the government has not only tightened visas but also deported some South Korean skilled workers, a highly unusual move.
The third: encourage foreign engineers studying at U.S. universities to stay and develop their careers in America after graduation. This is also happening quietly: two-thirds of Philip Wong's doctoral students are not U.S. citizens, but most of them choose to stay in the United States. A report from UC Berkeley shows this phenomenon is very common, and these international students provide significant momentum for American technological innovation. But the MAGA camp also resists this path.
That leaves a fourth option: the White House needs to recognize an obvious reality — the technology supply chain has long been highly globalized, and pursuing complete national self-sufficiency is nearly impossible; it should openly support high-skilled immigration, cross-border trade, and cooperation with allies.
Comments