Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1513227
80 PCB007 MAGAZINE I DECEMBER 2023 ture applications, or elec- trification and solar pan- els, windmills, and EV chargers? Is it healthy to have these other critical sectors of the economy largely or completely reli- ant on foreign sourcing? I would say no; that doesn't sound like a good idea at all. If, for manmade or natural disaster reasons, we suddenly can't get the substrates we need for banking soware or medical devices or the energy grid, that's a huge exposure. A great example is telecommunications deployment. ere's been a lot of debate about whether American or foreign companies should build out the next 5G network, I would argue that if you select an American company that bases the network on foreign-produced microelectronics in their cell towers, then you haven't solved the problem you thought you solved. We have to start cracking open our devices, asking hard questions about our sup- ply chains all the way down—not just one or two layers, but three or four layers deep. at redefinition of what the government buys and subsidizes would create that demand signal. For many years, private money has been chal- lenged to see the ROI. Of course, the govern- ment is not focused on return on investment as much as they are looking at national capacity, national security, jobs, etc. But there's a place where we can both be economically profitable and serve broader national interests. In the U.S., we are playing catch-up in eco- nomic policy. Other nations have chosen over the last half-century to work diligently to con- trol certain sectors of the economy like micro- electronics, rare earths, and any number of economic verticals. at was a strategic choice. When you build a road for free for a company, put the workers in subsidized housing, and give away the land, you're making an economic pol- icy decision. In Asia, Europe, and the Ameri- cas, some governments are saying, "We want to have more of this. Let's enact policies to further it." is is our geopoliti- cal competition. There does seem to be increasing bullish- ness about funding this industry in the finance sectors. I've been talk- ing to some folks who recommend looking at the state level to see whether assistance is available. Should business leaders be shaking those funding trees as well? We should be encouraged by what some states have done, like Michigan, in partnership with Calumet. ere are promising signals out of places like New York, Ohio, and Arizona, for example. We used to have board shops all over the country. Now my figures tell me that we have board and substrate work in at least 27 states. But certainly, our facilities could be everywhere. is is a good career with high- touch labor and a ready customer base. I'm encouraged to see states doing this; they see the immediate positive impact. ey see jobs and new construction. Visit outside of Colum- bus, Ohio, for example, and see farmland being turned into subdivisions so that Intel work- ers—who have yet to graduate from college— will have a place to live. What a boon for the Central Ohio economy. If I was a state law- maker, governor, or mayor, I would want to run that playbook in my districts. My experience is that lawmakers are largely unaware of the tremendous economic foot- print of the rest of the microelectronic stack. ey're driving by facilities that make boards and substrates and raw material facilities, not even realizing what's in their district and their state. We're on a mission to walk them through those production lines to put the technology in their hands. David, as always, thanks for the insight. ank you, Nolan. PCB007