Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8251

Bill Overview

Title: CHIPPING IN Act of 2022

Description: This bill requires the National Science Foundation to award funds to institutions of higher education and nonprofits to support workforce and educational development in microelectronics.

Sponsors: Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]

Target Audience

Population: people who will undergo workforce and educational training in microelectronics

Estimated Size: 200000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Computer Science Student (Boston, MA)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think this policy can be beneficial as it aligns with my career interests in tech and microelectronics.
  • Getting additional resources could mean more lab equipment and opportunities for hands-on projects, which are critical for my learning.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Microelectronics Technician (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Additional training opportunities funded by this initiative would help me keep up with industry standards.
  • I hope there will be affordable and accessible courses directly targeting people like me who are already working in the field.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's exciting to see initiatives supporting training in microelectronics since this can help diversify my career.
  • I am particularly interested in support for advanced training and certifications.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 9

Professor of Electrical Engineering (Austin, TX)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe increased funding will catalyze research and practical projects, beneficial for both faculty and students.
  • We can likely update our facilities and stay competitive with other institutions in microelectronics education.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 10 9
Year 20 10 9

Unemployed (Chicago, IL)

Age: 30 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy gives me hope since it could mean free or subsidized training programs to enter a promising industry.
  • Gaining practical skills will be essential for securing a job in today's market.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 8 6

High School Teacher (Little Rock, AR)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see this as an opportunity to enhance our curriculum and strengthen ties with local community colleges.
  • It is essential to keep students updated with skills industries require to promote future employment.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 8

Microelectronics Design Engineer (Raleigh, NC)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support initiatives like this one to keep our industry competitive globally.
  • The challenge is ensuring enough skilled workers; hence, educational development is crucial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 9

Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)

Age: 24 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Getting more funding means enhanced research capabilities, which can boost my academic output.
  • This can also translate into better job prospects post-graduation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Project Manager in Tech Company (San Jose, CA)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Long-term talent development in microelectronics is key for sustaining project output and innovation.
  • Education-focused policies provide a foundation, but they must match the pace of industry needs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 9

Retired Engineer (New York, NY)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think it's a good step forward, though I hope the implementation considers practical training alongside theoretical knowledge.
  • It's fulfilling to volunteer and share industry knowledge with students trying to enter the field.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)

Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 3: $750000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $900000000)

Year 5: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations