Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Ohio vs. Israel: Intel’s Tough Call

Let me share my two cents about the Intel factory in Ohio, a project that’s a big deal for American manufacturing and Intel. It’s an inspiring effort—bringing jobs, boosting U.S. tech independence, and showing what Intel can do right here at home.
I know how much it matters to so many of us, and I’m rooting for it to succeed. But I’ll be upfront: I’m not 100% sure it’ll hit the ground running by 2030. There’s a chance for delays, and while I hope I’m off the mark, I think it’s worth digging into why that might happen.
Let me say this upfront—this isn’t about downplaying Ohio or questioning Intel’s commitment to America. Far from it. It’s about understanding the bigger picture of Intel’s global operations and the tough choices that sometimes come with them.
Take the factory in Kiryat Gat, Israel, for example. It’s already finished construction (though tools aren’t inside yet), with billions invested over the years (I’m referring to Fab 38 and its two mods), and it’s a key part of Intel’s production network. Strategically, it’s in line for a tech upgrade soon, which could shift timelines elsewhere—like Ohio.

So, what’s driving this? Two things stand out to me. First, there’s the political side of things. With Trump pushing his own take on U.S. manufacturing—he’s been vocal about projects like TSMC’s $100 billion investment—he’s also questioned parts of the CHIPS Act, which Intel’s leaning on for Ohio. Politics can nudge corporate plans in unexpected ways. It’s not about picking sides; it’s just the reality of the landscape Intel’s navigating.

Second, there’s something special about how Intel operates in Israel that’s worth noting. The Kiryat Gat plant isn’t just a fab—it’s tied closely to Intel’s massive CPU design hub in Haifa. Those teams don’t just work together; they’ve built a real sense of trust and teamwork, the kind of loyalty we see across Intel’s culture. If Kiryat Gat were sidelined, it wouldn’t just be a business hit—it’d affect people who’ve had each other’s backs for years.

Shutting down or selling the Kiryat Gat facility would mean layoffs and stagnation, and the engineers in Haifa wouldn’t stand by and let their colleagues in Israel take that hit. If you don’t know Israeli solidarity firsthand, it’s tough to overstate. Back when Intel considered selling the Kiryat Gat plant (then owned by Numonyx) to Micron without securing the workers’ futures, massive protests erupted here. It wasn’t just noise—it forced a rethink.
Intel’s success—think Core processors and beyond—leans heavily on the Haifa engineering team. If Kiryat Gat took a hit, it could spark a talent drain in Haifa, and that’s a risk Intel can’t take. The work coming out of Israel is too critical to the company’s bottom line.

So, when I step back, I wonder if Ohio might not be first in line—not because it’s less valuable, but because Kiryat Gat’s already built. I’d genuinely love to be mistaken on this one, but that’s how I see it playing out.
I’m sharing this not to rain on anyone’s parade, but to put a perspective on the table.

by
| 1962 views | | 12 replies (last March 9, 2025) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1jnrjf0c2

12 replies (most recent on top)

So many shell Israeli startups have been sold to Intel from Mobileye to Habana. Now tables have been reversed. Israel can find out what it is to own a hollowed out shell Intel and break all the values.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @k0+1jnrjf0c2

What a bunch of propaganda bull dung. There's something special about Israel's relation with Palestine too. They've got their backs (in their sights), then they shoot.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @c9+1jnrjf0c2

but jesus rents a flat in israel

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bp+1jnrjf0c2

i'll take ohio

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bj+1jnrjf0c2

Ignore all the downvotes. Appreciate your thoughts, especially on the Haifa synergies.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @az+1jnrjf0c2

Don’t forget Iran! Israel blasted those hajis back to the 1970s. Sticks and stones and such.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ag+1jnrjf0c2

Izrayel did to Intel what it's now doing to Gaza. Hopefully the whole thing goes bust, it deserves to.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @af+1jnrjf0c2

@a6... I don't think that you are giving LTD the credit they deserve.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ae+1jnrjf0c2

Since we moved our design to IDC it has bee a clustereff.....nothing and no one has effed intel harder than than the arrogant yids at IDC.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a6+1jnrjf0c2

Through a series of headcount actions starting with BK, the company has been trying to offload all those who joined Intel in the 1980s and 1990s, because they are all culturally infected with the mentality of a monopoly company.

I see Pat as typical of that approach to the business, and the failure of all those headcount actions was that they failed to get rid of the executives from that bygone era.

Those people are being aged out now, but the Board is still there.

It's possible that some new CEO or takeover would clean the slate, but Intel may have to suffer through the lingering effects of so much outdated strategy and just wait for all those people to retire.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a5+1jnrjf0c2

TLDR: Pat is either: 1) a thieving crook, 2) a baboon who ignorance is only exceeded by his fake, faith-inspired pollyanna.

I think he’s a bit of both: the Joel Olstein of tech.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a4+1jnrjf0c2

These were both examples of the outdating IDM thinking, to build capacity where there was no proven demand.

That made sense when the company had a dominant position in several markets, but now would only make sense if IFS had at least one leading node customer who dominated their market, such as is the case with TSMC and Apple (aka, the fruity cargo cult, per fudzilla).

Pat and the Board made that mistake, which shows how bound they were at the time to the IDM mentality, long after the point in time when that should have been seen as a failing strategy. They thought they could make x86 dominant again, and that is a fantasy.

Keep it up and the company will go bankrupt, sold for pennies to GF and BC.

I get the sense that some of the new, younger leaders in IFS, like Naga and DZ, want to pursue what they call 'smart' capital, and the best thing they can do at this point is what they have done.

If IFS does onboard some meaningful wafer volume customers, then the shells have utility down the road, but it might make more sense to sell one of both of them to GF or some other foundry.

All of the failures of Intel (and they are legion) are self induced. At this point the company would be challenged to strategize its way out of a paper sack.

My cat can do that.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a3+1jnrjf0c2

Post a reply

: