From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Alleged Benefits of Military $
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:04:29 GMT

In article 18549@ke4zv.uucp, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1469100020@igc.apc.org> mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman) writes:
>>
.....
>Military contracting does produce fewer *direct* jobs than public
>works or education spending. However, this is where the multiplier
>is important, more money is pumped into the local consumer economy
>by higher paid workers than by lower wage employees. That's because
>a larger proportion of their income is discressionary. 
an example would be the low-wage worker who frequently vacations
in France--not likely!   The sum of wages is equal.  Poor folks
save less and *that* increases the multiplier.  (and the velocity!)
>
.....
>If by higher income you mean millionaires, then you are correct. But
>if by higher income you mean aerospace workers, you are wrong. Most
>of the middle class have *no* savings and a substantial debt load.
>That's because their consumer spending is a very high percentage of
>their income. Low wage workers and welfare recipients spend the bulk
>of their small incomes on subsistence expenses such as utilities and 
>food. The margin in utility and food services is small and the multiplier 
>consequently low. The margins in consumer goods are high and the 
>multiplier is also high.
middle class folks have positive savings.  debt is generally less than
assets (except for first-time home buyers).  poor folks have little savings
or assets.  welfare folks have little by law.  
 this -> "The margin in utility and food services is small" <- pioneers
new use of words and thus makes little sense.

......
>
>Highway spending has a different kind of multiplier as you note. However,
>the Federal Highway Trust Fund is currently in surplus and new highway
>construction is vigorously opposed by legal action. In other words, the
>public thinks they have enough roads.
Huh?  maybe in South Pasadena, but most places would love highway work
and those $$$$$.



 Technologies never occur in a
>vacuum. The enabling infrastructures developed to support a given 
>technology usually have wide applicability. The classic example is
>the semiconductor industry. The aerospace industry no longer drives
>this basic industry, but it was space and military funding that
>pushed the technology to the point where it became widely available
>to the civilian economy. Now, the military's problem is that the
>consumer sector has outstripped the military applications and getting
>spare parts for older designs still in service is difficult. Military
>funding no longer drives this industry. It should be pointed out that
>few of the civilian applications of semiconductors were forseen at the
>time the military was driving this technology. That's true in most 
>cases where complex new technology infrastructure is required to reach
>a critical mass before consumer applications can take off. Some of
>the technologies currently being pushed by military requirements,
>composite materials come immediately to mind, will likely form the
>basis for new civilian applications as the basic technologies mature.
i disagree with your perspective on IC's, but nobody disputes that
spinoffs do occur.  The point is, direct research $$$$ is more
efficient than channeling thru mil. or NASA or USDA...


....

>Well, I think it's acurate to say that SSF is not primarily about science.
>Though it will serve as a science platform. Primarily it's an engineering
>testbed for exploiting an alien environment. The entire space program is
>only peripherally about science. It's primarily about technology development
>and political show the flag at this point. Judged only on the basis of
>science value, the entire space program should be cancelled and the money
>be put into basic field grants right here on Earth. Much more science could 
>be accomplished on millions of tabletops than in one space probe, and employ 
>more science workers in the process. Most Big Science is really engineering
>development rather than basic research. I happen to think that engineering
>development is valuable, but that's my bias.
>
and i totally agree.  i just think everyone should honestly appraise the
$$ costs and true costs of what is decided.  be honest and let the projects
stand on their merits and some cloud of illusionary spin-off benefits.
--DonG

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro