1 Super Semiconductor Stock (Besides Nvidia or AMD) to Buy Hand Over Fist
The memory and storage chips supplied by Micron Technology are also critical for AI workloads in data centers, computers, and smartphones.
Micron stock trades at a very attractive valuation right now, presenting investors with a great potential buying opportunity.
10 stocks we like better than Micron Technology ›
When it comes to artificial intelligence (AI) chips, most investors typically think about the graphics processing units (GPUs) designed by Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) and Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ: AMD). GPU sales have soared for both companies over the last couple of years, and in Nvidia's case, they have added trillions of dollars to its market capitalization.
But Micron Technology (NASDAQ: MU) also deserves recognition for its memory and storage chips, which are increasingly important for AI workloads in data centers, personal computers, and even smartphones. The company just released financial results for its fiscal 2025 third quarter (which ended May 29), revealing a continued surge in demand for AI-related memory capacity.
Micron stock is up 42% in 2025 already, but here's why it might still be a screaming buy.
Data center GPUs are designed for parallel processing, which means they can perform several computations simultaneously and handle the enormous data sets required to deploy AI models. But these workloads also need high-bandwidth memory (HBM), which stores information in a ready state so it can be called upon by the GPU at a moment's notice.
Micron's HBM3E solution for the data center leads the industry in performance and efficiency. In fact, Nvidia selected it to power its latest Blackwell and Blackwell Ultra GPUs, and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) will also use it in its upcoming MI355X GPUs. Micron is now gearing up to produce commercial quantities of its new HBM4 data center solution next year, which will deliver a 60% performance boost over HBM3E and consume 20% less power, making it ideal for next-generation "reasoning" AI models.
Micron estimates its addressable market for data center HBM will be worth $35 billion this calendar year, and expects that figure to soar to $100 billion by 2030, so there is an enormous opportunity ahead for the company.
But some AI workloads are now being processed on personal computers (PCs) and smartphones without the need for external computing capacity from data centers. This trend will accelerate as chips become more powerful, and it's already driving up demand for DRAM (memory). Micron says AI-enabled PCs typically require a minimum DRAM capacity of 16 gigabytes, compared to 12 gigabytes for their non-AI counterparts, and AI smartphones are commanding a similar increase in capacity.
Micron generated $9.3 billion in total revenue during the fiscal 2025 third quarter, ended May 29. It was a 37% increase from the year-ago period, and it was also comfortably above the high end of management's guidance range, which was $9 billion. But the real growth story lies beneath the surface of the headline number.
Micron's compute and networking segment, which is where it accounts for its data center HBM sales, delivered $5.1 billion in revenue, which was a whopping 97% increase from the year-ago period. Revenue from the mobile segment came in at $1.6 billion, and while that was down 2% year over year, it represented growth of 45% sequentially (compared to the second quarter of fiscal 2025 three months earlier).
Micron's soaring revenue also led to a strong result at the bottom line during the quarter. Its generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) earnings per share (EPS) soared by an eye-popping 460% year over year to $1.68.
Looking ahead to the fourth quarter (which will end Aug. 31), Micron is forecasting a record $10.7 billion in revenue along with $2.29 in EPS, which would represent year-over-year increases of 38% and 190%, respectively.
Despite its 42% gain in 2025 so far, Micron stock is still relatively cheap. Based on the company's trailing-12-month EPS of $5.55, the stock is trading at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 22.5. That's a 55% discount to Nvidia stock, which currently trades at a P/E ratio of 50.9:
Considering Micron's HBM3E solution is integrated into all of Nvidia's latest GPUs, Micron's data center sales should grow in lockstep with Nvidia's data center sales from here. When you also factor in the potential demand from AMD for its latest GPUs, and demand for memory from AI PC and smartphone manufacturers, it's reasonable to conclude that Micron stock deserves a higher valuation.
As a result, Micron stock could be a great buy right now, especially for investors who already own Nvidia and AMD and are looking to diversify their AI semiconductor holdings.
Before you buy stock in Micron Technology, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Micron Technology wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $713,547!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $966,931!*
Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,062% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 177% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join .
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of June 30, 2025
Anthony Di Pizio has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Advanced Micro Devices and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
1 Super Semiconductor Stock (Besides Nvidia or AMD) to Buy Hand Over Fist was originally published by The Motley Fool
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
38 minutes ago
- New York Times
NHL free agency best and worst deals: On Ivan Provorov, Mitch Marner and many more
The wackiest day on the NHL calendar has come to a close. Now it's time to look at the best and worst from the start of free agency. As usual, it's a lot easier to find deals that fit the 'worst' list compared to the 'best' list. That's the nature of the open market, where the highest bidder is usually the one left holding onto a very expensive mistake. Still, it's not all bad. Getting a great player without giving up assets is still a win, and there are some under-the-radar adds that should provide some positive value, too. Here are the five best and five worst signings from the start of the offseason. The big fish Now that the NHL is exiting the flat-cap era and entering a cap-growth era, talent acquisition has arguably become just as important as spending discipline. With so much cap space available, just getting the guy is a big deal. That's within reason, and we'll get to that on the other side, but it's hard not to love the Golden Knights and Rangers landing the biggest fish on the market in Mitch Marner and Vladislav Gavrikov. Vegas fills a massive need, adding to its core with a two-way superstar winger, while the Rangers fill their own with a defensively stout partner for Adam Fox. Two teams with lofty ambitions got their guys and that's a win in and of itself. Advertisement What sets these deals apart is that, on paper, they were also pretty damn good. Especially compared to what was rumored for both Marner (over $13 million) and Gavrikov (over $8 million). Both ended up signing for almost their exact worth. These were more than fair prices and on July 1, for the best players, it's hard not to say anything but 'bravo' for both signings. The hometown discount With how little actually happened on July 1, we're going to make several exceptions for this list. One of them is Aaron Ekblad's new deal, which will pay him just $6.1 million for the next eight years. Ekblad could've easily commanded $8 million on the open market and he probably would've been worth it too. This is, without a doubt, a massive win for the Panthers, who get to keep the band together for several more runs. A lot of people will clamor about the 'no state tax' advantage here and there's a kernel of truth to that. But this goes beyond that because Ekblad left money on the table even with that considered. The Panthers have several advantages that they're able to stack on top of each other, making the Ekblad deal possible only for them. That starts with knowing how to price players. They know how to negotiate because of that, they know how to create a winning roster because of that, and they can keep building on top of that in an endless cycle of good deals. Players want to win, players are willing to take less to win, and Florida provides the best opportunity. Sprinkle the no state tax discount on top of that and it becomes an easy decision where the discounts become obnoxiously large. That's where Ekblad's deal lands. Florida is home for Ekblad and it's also where he's gone back-to-back with a chance to build a dynasty. That's worth all the millions (and more) he could've gotten somewhere else. Advertisement Great RFA bets This may be cheating, but the best deals in this league are almost never for UFAs — they're for RFAs. We got proof of that with three massive signings over the last two days for Evan Bouchard, Matthew Knies and Logan Stankoven. Bouchard is one of the absolute best offensive defensemen in the world, serving as rocket fuel for Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl. He helps make them better with his dynamic puck play from the back-end and he only elevates his game further in the playoffs. In a world where Noah Dobson gets $9.5 million and Jakob Chychrun gets $9 million, having Bouchard for just $10.5 million is a steal. And that's true even if it's only for four years and even if he'll make some Big Mistakes along the way. In Knies and Stankoven, the Maple Leafs and Hurricanes made big bets on potential — both of which have a strong shot of panning out. Knies looks like he may become one of the NHL's premier power forwards and having him locked up for the next six years at a reasonable price is terrific. The Leafs finally get good value on a core forward's second contract. As for Stankoven, the Hurricanes are paying him second-line money on an eight-year extension that kicks off in 2026-27. With the cap set to explode and Stankoven's legitimate star upside, it's a savvy bet that has the potential to provide a massive return. If he can become a top-line talent, it could become one of the league's best deals, period. These deals don't come without risk. But that risk is well worth the potential reward in a growing cap world. In this league, it's almost always better to bet on what a player will likely become than what a player was. While other teams spend big on the back half of a player's career, these deals take on the player's prime. Pay for their best, not their worst. Cheap depth defensemen While many teams spend July 1 shelling out tons of money for defensemen who aren't very effective, the best bet is usually to scour the bargain bin. That's how Florida got Oliver Ekman-Larsson two years ago and Nate Schmidt last year. Advertisement It should come as no shock that the two-time defending champs decided to employ the same strategy this offseason with Jeff Petry. While he may no longer be top-four caliber, he should be more than fine in a sheltered role. At league minimum, Petry is a valuable add. A few others that fit that bill: Mike Reilly signing for $1.1 million in Carolina, Pittsburgh nabbing Parker Wotherspoon for $1 million and Detroit adding Jacob Bernard-Docker at $875,000. None are big needle-movers, but they can be fine in a third-pair role. For the price, it's a lot more sensible than what some of the more desperate teams are doing, paying $3 million or more for comparable on-ice performance. The question marks Not being sure how actually good a player is can often be a market inefficiency that can be exploited this time of year. The brand-name guys get overpaid based on reputation. These guys? They usually get underpaid due to an air of uncertainty about whether they're legit or not. Now, that obviously adds some risk where maybe the target really isn't that good, but it does leave some room for error. The other bonus: the term is usually short too, leaving some flexibility if it doesn't work out. This year, the best candidates for that are Andrei Kuzmenko, Jonathan Drouin and Dante Fabbro. All three look like they can be top-of-the-lineup contributors, with Kuzmenko and Drouin offering second-line ability and Fabbro establishing himself as a top-four guy. Their numbers are good, they've looked good, but some caveats create question marks. Can Kuzmenko be a consistent producer? Is Drouin just a byproduct of Nathan MacKinnon and Cale Makar? Can Fabbro drive a pair? Those are all reasonable questions to ask, but at the prices paid — right around $4 million, there's very little actual risk to the deals. At worst, they're modestly expensive third liners or third-pair guys. In a growing cap world where Miles Wood's salary can be cleared with ease, that's no longer an issue. With Kuzmenko and Fabbro, we know the fit is there, too, which helps. As for Drouin, there's a potentially great fit next to Bo Horvat with his name on it. The other big fish I don't want to harp anymore on Ivan Provorov than I already did with his contract grade. Good player, bad deal — don't need to beat a dead horse. On the other hand, that was before seeing Gavrikov's deal, which comes in $1.5 million cheaper for the same length. Ouch. There's no doubt who the more valuable defensemen is between the two, right? That comparison puts Provorov's deal further into perspective and not in a good way. The Blue Jackets were able to keep their big fish fed and happy enough to stay, but at a truly exorbitant cost. Advertisement The opposite of a hometown discount I don't know what the word is for the opposite of a hometown discount, but the Canucks got one in Thatcher Demko. Yes, he looked franchise-calibre two years ago, but that's sandwiched by two years where injuries took a serious toll on his game. After an .889 save percentage where Demko was only able to play 23 games, was an $8.5 million AAV really warranted? The Canucks did well to keep the term short given the unpredictable nature of goalies in general and with Demko in particular. But it does feel like they should've gotten a much better deal on the cap hit, considering the season Demko is coming off of. Combine that with the deal they recently signed for Kevin Lankinen, and there's a lot that doesn't make sense about Vancouver's approach here. Paying $13 million for potentially mid goaltending starting in 2026-27 doesn't sound ideal. Tough RFA bets Not every RFA bet is made equal. Even with team control, there's still room for error if a team misevaluates what they have. That's easier on defense, where a lust for size can lead to ignoring actual on-ice quality. Kevin Bahl and Nicolas Hague are two prime examples of that. How either player is getting over $5 million is beyond me. Even with the cap growing, a $5 million cap hit should still be reserved for defensemen who can actually play in the top four. It's fair to be skeptical that either Bahl or Hague can do that to an effective enough degree to be worth it. While Bahl was in that role for the Flames last season, that was out of necessity more than merit. Bahl's presence there was part of the reason the Flames weren't a very good hockey team. As for Hague, he struggled in third-pair minutes with Vegas last season, making him a difficult bet to move up the lineup on a worse team. To Hague's credit, he's at least been close to the calibre of a No. 4 defenseman in the past, but the Predators should be paying for what he is now — a fine third-pair guy — not what he used to be. Expensive depth defensemen Oh, Ken Holland, you couldn't resist, could you? The veteran GM put his stamp on the Kings with two high-risk bets on the back end in Cody Ceci and Brian Dumoulin at the combined cost of $8.5 million. At that price, it would've been better to just overpay Gavrikov — at least you know he's a rock-solid top-four defenseman. These guys? Not so much. Maybe they were at one point, just not anymore. Ceci's underlying numbers have been rough for years, but in Edmonton, he at least had the tough minutes excuse. For the Oilers, he offered mostly fair value with that in mind, but it was evident during the 2024 Stanley Cup Final run that Ceci's game didn't have much left. During the 2024-25 season, he struggled mightily with the Sharks and was just as poor with the Stars. It's possible that Ceci does better in the Kings' defensive system and bounces back, but at his age and this price, it's a bad bet. Advertisement The same thing goes for Dumoulin, whose inability to play in the top four has been made exceptionally clear over the last few years. In a sheltered role with the Kraken, Dumoulin thrived. But that wasn't the case in Pittsburgh or Anaheim, where he was tasked with a much larger burden. If Ceci and Dumoulin end up as the Kings' third pair, they can probably work just fine. Given the price paid, it looks likely they'll be asked to do a lot more and it wouldn't be a shock to see this duo as the Kings' opening night second pair. Woof. Between these two and Joel Edmundson, Los Angeles' blue line is in dire straits with guys who can't do a lot with the puck. That probably won't cut it in the playoffs. Just because guys used to play top-four minutes doesn't mean they can still play that role. Or that they should still be paid to that level. In Ceci and Dumoulin, Holland made a difficult bet that looks very unlikely to pay off. Shocking money for a replacement-level player I am not sure how the Tanner Jeannot deal happens in the year 2025. Did the Bruins learn nothing from Barclay Goodrow or Miles Wood and the perils of paying too much and too long for a depth guy? Did they learn nothing from the Lightning trading a whole draft class for Jeannot a few years ago? Have they witnessed Jeannot's own play over the last few years? At this stage of his career, Jeannot is a replacement-level guy who moves the needle way too far in the wrong direction. It's absolutely indefensible to pay him third-line money for the next five years, especially mere months after the team reportedly nickel-and-dimed their captain into going elsewhere. It's been a long time since Jeannot has been a top-nine player, and while there's a small chance he gets back to that level, the Bruins made way too rich of a bet to find out. (Top photos of Ivan Provorov and Mitch Marner: Joseph Maiorana and John E. Sokolowski / Imagn Images)
CNN
40 minutes ago
- CNN
Carveouts for Alaska and tax breaks for whalers: How Lisa Murkowski got to yes on Trump's agenda bill
The fate of President Donald Trump's domestic agenda was in Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski's hands – and she used that leverage to force a series of changes that will deliver more federal dollars to her state. The Senate passed Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful bill' on Tuesday, after a 26-hour marathon of negotiations and amendments during which Murkowski, as she put it later, 'struggled mightily' to soften the biggest funding blows to Alaska before ultimately casting a vote that guaranteed its passage. The changes she won, including some crucial carveouts for Alaska, were a window into how such a massive piece of legislation comes together in Washington. The closely divided Senate means figures like Murkowski – a moderate with a history of defying Trump, elected by a state with an independent streak – wield enormous power. 'This is probably the most difficult and agonizing legislative 24-hour period that I have encountered,' Murkowski told reporters afterward. 'And I've been here quite a while, and you all know I've got a few battle scars underneath me. But I think I held my head up and made sure that the people of Alaska are not forgotten in this.' Murkowski's role as the deciding vote on the bill that extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts, funds his immigration crackdown, imposes work requirements on social safety net programs and more, came fully into view in recent days. Republicans, who control the Senate by a 53-47 margin, believed they'd already lost Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who objected to the bill's debt ceiling increase, and were doubtful about Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who objected to Medicaid spending cuts and is up for reelection next year in a moderate state. Then, over the weekend, North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis announced he would not seek reelection and delivered a fiery speech lambasting the Medicaid cuts and warning Trump he's been 'misinformed' about their impact. That meant the GOP had no more votes to spare. The bill's only chance at passage was a 50-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie. Suddenly, much of the party's focus was on Murkowski. For the next 48 hours, the Alaska senator was the subject of frenzied lobbying by some of Washington's most powerful Republicans, including Vance, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and committee chairmen. Behind the scenes, staffers were rewriting key pieces of the bill to win her support – making changes on Medicaid, nutritional assistance and even adding a tax break for whaling captains. South Carolina Sen. Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of Trump's closest Capitol Hill allies, spent hours courting Murkowski's vote, including long huddles on the Senate floor at all hours. That included a tense conversation just ahead of the vote, in which Graham said Murkowski vented her frustrations about the massive scope and complexity of the package but in the end, he said, didn't want it all to fail. 'I just said, in my talk with her, 'Number one, I'm frustrated too,'' Graham recalled of their conversation on the floor. He went on to stress other critical provisions of the bill, including money for the military. Murkowski had praised the added Coast Guard funds. Graham's main message to her, he said, was this: 'Are you good? If you're not good, tell me why and see if we can fix it.' Murkowski has long telegraphed her concerns with the bill. In a town hall last month in Cordova – a port town accessible only by plane or ferry – she praised some elements of the bill but warned against federal funding cuts to social safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps. Some lawmakers, including Murkowski and Collins, were particularly worried about the blow Medicaid cuts would deliver to rural hospitals – many of which are struggling, with some closing already. 'Many of us are looking at that and saying, it makes no sense to put a greater burden on the most vulnerable in our communities when it comes to health care and access to health care,' Murkowski said at the town hall, The Cordova Times reported. 'I have made clear very early on that we cannot move forward with a bill that makes cuts to Medicaid.' One obstacle for Republicans courting Murkowski's vote was the Senate parliamentarian, who rules on whether provisions of bills violate the chamber's budget rules. Shortly before the final vote, Senate leaders were still trying to secure more funding for Alaska's rural hospitals – after already doubling a fund they'd added for rural hospitals, from $25 billion to $50 billion, to be disbursed over five years. Staffers were still writing in the margins of the bill, trying to find a way to make the rural hospital fund more appealing to Murkowski, two sources familiar with the matter said. Collins also lobbied to beef up the rural hospital fund, but it was not enough to win her vote. It was one of many attempts to shore up more funding for the state's Medicaid recipients or providers that failed to pass muster with the parliamentarian. At first, Republicans devised a provision that increased Medicaid funding for states based on poverty rates. It was crafted in a way that would have applied only to Alaska and Hawaii. That, the parliamentarian said, violated Senate rules. Next, Republicans tried to use population density to apply increased Medicaid funding to Alaska and more rural states, including Montana, North and South Dakota and Wyoming, one of the sources said. It was ruled out of order. Ultimately, there might be some wiggle room to help Alaska, after all. A GOP source familiar with the rural hospital fund said that while some of its funding will be doled out based on a formula, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also has discretion and flexibility to weight other factors that will allow them to steer where the money goes. In addition to the fight on Medicaid, Murkowski won a huge victory on a provision that delays the requirement that states with high payment error rates start contributing to the cost of food stamp benefits. The original measure would make states with error rates of 6% or higher pick up between 5% and 15% of the tab. But the states with the largest error rates would get another year or two to implement the provision, said Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Currently, 10 states, including Alaska, have error rates that would qualify for the delay. Murkowski also won a change in the expansion of the work requirement for food stamps. Alaska, as well as Hawaii, got two other carveouts: One would allow these states to waive all work requirements based on high unemployment rates. For other states, the package limits such waivers. The other carveout would allow either state to request a temporary waiver for residents from the work requirement if the US Agriculture secretary determines the state is making a 'good faith' effort to implement the mandate. She also secured an increase in a special tax deduction for whaling boat captains. Murkowski told reporters she 'struggled mightily' with the impacts of cutting Medicaid and food stamp benefits in her state. 'That weighs very, very heavily, and so what I tried to do was to ensure that my colleagues understood what that means when you live in an area where there are no jobs. It is not a cash economy. And so I needed help and I worked to get that every single day,' she said. Murkowski is a Republican, but one who owes less politically to Trump and the party's establishment than most in her party. After losing the GOP primary during her reelection bid in 2010, she ran as a write-in candidate – and won the general election. A decade later, Trump had said he'd back anyone with 'a pulse' against Murkowski in her primary. Former Alaska Department of Administration commissioner Kelly Tshibaka ran, with endorsements from Trump and the Alaska Republican Party. But Murkowski won again, earning more first-place votes than Tshibaka in both the primary and general election in Alaska's ranked-choice voting system. Murkowski has also mused aloud multiple times about the possibility of leaving the GOP to become an independent, including in a podcast interview released last week. Her hard-nosed negotiating over the bill containing Trump's domestic agenda evoked memories of other carve-outs designed to win over individual lawmakers when congressional leaders had no votes to spare. In 2010, when Senate Democrats held 60 seats and could spare zero votes to break a filibuster and pass the Affordable Care Act into law, they sought to earn Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's support with the 'Cornhusker Kickback' – a provision that permanently exempted his state from paying for its share of the law's Medicaid expansion. Seven years later, as the GOP sought to repeal Obamacare during Trump's first term in the White House, Senate Republicans tucked into their bill what some called the 'Polar Payoff.' It was a subsidy for the individual health insurance marketplaces that was designed only to benefit Alaska. (Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer derisively used the same phrase to describe the latest deal for Murkowski.) Neither of those earlier carve-outs became law. And it's not yet clear whether the changes Murkowski negotiated will remain in place as Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill returns to the House. Adding to the uncertainty, the Alaska senator stunned some of her own colleagues in both chambers when she told reporters Tuesday, shortly after the bill's passage, that she hopes the House amends it and returns it to the Senate. 'We do not have a perfect bill, by any stretch of the imagination,' she said. 'My hope is that the House is going to look at this and recognize that we're not there yet. And I would hope that we would be able to actually do what we used to do around here, which is work back and forth between the two bodies to get a measure that's going to be better for the people in this country, and more particularly, for the people in Alaska.'
CBS News
42 minutes ago
- CBS News
Philadelphians say they support the union's demands to strike, but hope trash doesn't pile on city streets
Philadelphia residents already feeling effects of strike with trash pickup coming to a halt Philadelphia residents already feeling effects of strike with trash pickup coming to a halt Philadelphia residents already feeling effects of strike with trash pickup coming to a halt Trash is piling up across Philadelphia as the city's largest blue-collar union, District Council 33, begins a massive strike, bringing essential services like trash pickup to a grinding halt. The city is working quickly to ease the impact, rolling out 63 temporary drop-off sites to help residents manage waste while sanitation workers remain off the job. But as the standoff continues, so do growing frustrations among neighbors and business owners. In Graduate Hospital, garbage bags lined the sidewalks just hours after the strike began. "It's a shame, it's going to get very dirty very quick," Michael Showell said. "A lot of neighbors don't get that information. As you can see on this block, there's tons of trash out." More than 9,000 city employees walked off the job on Tuesday, demanding better wages and working conditions. For many residents, the disruption is already being felt. "It's going to be a tough problem," said Linda Fandino, who works at Barbermania. "We don't want the trash inside. It will smell bad. The customers will complain, and we don't want that." Others, like Ian Feldenzer, worry the city's temporary solutions may not hold up for long. "It's kind of flexible for the city to say 'OK, you have until 10 p.m. to drop it off,' but I think by Wednesday morning it's just going to be this big mountain," Feldenzer said. The city's 63 temporary drop-off locations, including one at 18th and Catharine streets, are open Monday through Saturday from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Residents are asked to use the sites only on their regular pickup days and limit themselves to eight bags of trash, with no loose waste. "It's a mess," said Evan Finch, a local resident. "But you know, the union's got to do what they've got to do. I just wish we had a little more notice." This isn't the first time Philadelphia has dealt with a sanitation strike. The last time District Council 33 walked off the job was in 1986, and it left a lasting mark on the city. Archival photos show trash piled along sidewalks and parking lots overflowing with garbage. The memory serves as a powerful reminder of what's at stake if a resolution isn't reached soon. A photo from the last District Council 33 strike in Philadelphia in 1986. Despite the inconvenience, many residents said they support the workers' demands. "All workers, whether in the private sector or city jobs, deserve fair pay, good wages and good working conditions," Chris Carr said. "I get that city workers want better pay and conditions," Feldenzer said, "but I also understand the frustration from residents. It's a real inconvenience." Still, there's hope on the streets that a deal is within reach. "I hope the city is happy, the workers are happy, we need them," Showell said. "They should be well paid. But at the same time, we do need their services." "I hope by the next pickup they have everything figured out," Finch said.
