yi_ i;ii__ ̧ .... ::__

i7 • S _L _(/_

THE PRIVATE SECTOR ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT

BENEFITS TO THE NATION AND TO EACH STATE OF

PROPOSED FY 1990 NASA PROCUREMENT EXPENDITURES

Prepared For

The NASA Alumni League

922 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20003

By

Management Information Services, Inc.

116 Fourth Street, S.E.

Washington, D,C. 20003

April 1989

[NAS_-CR-18589_} THE PRIVATE SECIOR N89-28_8

ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO THE

NATION _ND TO EACH STATE OF pROPOSED F¥ 1990

NASA PROCUREMENT EXPENDITURES _M_n_gelent .. Unclas

Information Services) 77 p CS£L 05C G3/83 02321372
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pa_9_q_

.,o...,.-- -'i

+++o.++o++++l......+o+-''''°'+'++''+++

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. xiii

PREFACE ........................................................... xiv

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1

II. TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC RATIONALE FOR THE SPACE PROGRAM ......... 2

III. THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT

BENEFITS OF EXPENDITURES ON THE SPACE PROGRAM ................ 4

IV. THE MISI APPROACH ............................................ 5

V. BENEFITS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL .............................. II

VI. THE BENEFITS TO EACH STATE .................................. 30

48

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report estimates the private sector economic and employment

. . 80 industries and 475 occupations) of

benefits (dlsaggregated __ent expenditures to the natlon and to

proposed FY 1990 NASA prouux_,_, =

each state. Nationwide. it finds that FY 1990 NASA procurement

expenditures of $11.3 billion will have an economic multiplier of

2.1 and will create, directly and indirectly:

o 237,000 j Obsa

o $23.2 billion in total industry sales

o $2.4 billion in corporate profits

o $7.4 billion in Federal, state, and local government tax

revenues

These benefits are widely dispersed throughout the united States

and are significant in many states not normally considered to be

major beneficiaries of NASA spending (Figure EX.I).

This study (the first comprehensive analysis of the state-bystate industry and job effects of NASA procurement spending) finds

that the industries benefiting the most from NASA procurement

include many in the basic manufacturing and the high technology

areas. Examining the indirect effects of NASA procurement

emphasizes that NASA spending supports such basic industries as

Iron and Steel Manufacturing, Metalworking Machinery, and Chemicals

(Table EX.I).. rates (for select industries) the indirect

Table EX.I lllUSt __- _ _ro_osed FY 1990 NASA

economic multipliers resu±_In_ _ .... _ = • ' s show

. . For each industry these multlpller

rocurement expendltures^_ _,_ reauirements resulting from

P • ' : _" to u±L_ _ut

the ratio ol uu_

NASA procurement spending. The larger the multiplier, the greater

are the indirect requirements for the output of the industry

generated by NASA procurement. The multipliers are seen to vary

widely among individual industries, ranging from a high of 42 for

Iron and Steel Manufacturing to a low of 1.2 for Aircraft and

Parts.

The jobs created (Table EX.2) are disproportionately concentrated

among scientists, Engineers, and skilled workers, and NASA

procurement programs are thus a significant factor in

aThese are jobs in private industry and do not include NASA

employees or other Federal workers.
I.JFiqure EX.I

States Benefiting Most from U.S. Space Program

Fiscal Year 1990

,..a_egorY

c:f Benetlt_' _

I Mojor Pdme Controct"a

I_ Higher indirect

[] Lo,#er Ind]rect

Source: Management information Services, Inc.; 1989.
Table EX.I

Indirect Economic Multipliers Resulting from Proposed

NASA FY 1990 Procurement Expenditures -- Selected industries

Industry

Primary Iron and Steel Manufacturing

Primary Nonferrours Metals Manufacturing

Electric Lighting and wiring Equipment

Rubber and Misc. Plastics Products

Metalworking Machinery

Electronic Components

Misc. Fabricated Metal Products

Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services

Chemicals and Selected Chemical Products

Metal Containers

Wholesale and Retail Trade

Communications, except Radio and Television

Business Servlces

Electrical Transmission Equipment

Transportation and Warehousing

Electrical Transmission Equipment

Transportation and Warehousing

AVERAGE, ALL INDUSTRIES

Motor Vehicles and Equipment

optical, Ophthalmic, and Photgraphic Equipment

and Supplies

Petroleum Refining and Related Industries

office, Computing, and Accounting Machines

Engines and Turbines

Aircraft and Parts

Miscellaneous Transportation Equipment

_a

41.8

30.0

13.5

8.3

8.1

6.7

5.9

4.5

3.2

3.2

3.0

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.4

1.2

i.i

aRatio of total to direct output requirements.

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989.

iii
Table EX.2

Jobs Created by Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures

Within Selected Occupations, Ranked by Relative Job Impact

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

Ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

3O

Aerospace Engineers

Mechanical Engineering Technicians

Electronic Repairers, Communications Equipment

Inspectors and Testors

Aircraft Engine Mechanics

Electrical Engineers

Mathematicians

Electrical Equipment Asseblers

Solderers and Brazers

Metallurgical Engineers

Industrial Engineers

Operations and Systems Researchers

Electrical Technicians

Mechanical Engineers

Grinding and Polishing Machine Operators

Metal Plating Machine Operators

Tool and Die Makers

Misc. Engineering Technicians

Computer Programmers

Marine Engineers

Purchasing Agents and Buyers

Technical Writers

Chemical Engineers

Computer Systems Analysts

Misc. Engineers

Misc. Science Technicians

Drafting Occupations

civil Engineers

Mining Engineers

Chemists, except Biochemists

Jobs

Created

3,441

577

915

1,556

881

5,304

123

2,047

395

344

2,288

1,359

2,404

2,413

1,266

394

1,272

1,653

2,736

98

1,472

329

476

1,620

986

344

1,174

897

52

412

aRanked on the basis of the percent job impact on the occupation.

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989

iv
the labor market for many science, Engineering, and skilled

occupations. Nevertheless, the study determines that NASA

expenditures create (in absolute terms) many more jobs for blue

collar and lesser skilled labor not normally linked to the Space

Program. Substantial numbers of jobs are created in virtually

every industry and every occupation.

The total sales and jobs created in each state by proposed FY

1990 NASA procurement expenditures are estimated (Table EX.3). As

expected, significant industry and job benefits accrue to those

states such as California, Texas, and Florida that are the largest

direct recipients of NASA procurement funds. However, as Table

EX.3 shows, all states benefit economically from the Space Program

and significant benefits accrue to states other than those

receiving the prime contract awards.

A major purpose of the analysis is to identify the indirect

economic benefits to each state resulting from the U.S. Space

program -- the benefits flowing from the second- third- and fourth

rounds of industry purchases generated by NASA procurement

expenditures. For some states these are found to be very high,

with multipliers of total to direct benefits of i0 to 1 and higher

(Table EX.4 and Figure EX.2).

Each state is ranked on the basis of several criteria, including

the total benefits, indirect benefits, and per capita benefits

received from NASA spending. These criteria permit the

identification of the states benefitting the most, both directly

and indirectly, from proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement (Figure

EX. i) .

The states receiving the most benefits directly, the major prime

contractor award states, are (Figure EX.I): Alabama, California,

Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

The states receiving the most benefits indirectly (Figure EX.I)

are: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,

Tennessee, Washington, and wisconsin.

The report thus finds that while high prime contract award

states such as California, Texas, and Florida benefit greatly from

NASA procurement spending, so also do other states such as

Michigan, which receive only a relatively small portion of NASA

contracts. As shown in Figure EX.I, these "winners" include many

states not usually linked to the Space Program, such as New Jersey,

Arizona, Minnesota, Illinois, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Michigan, New

Hampshire, and North Carolina.

For example, proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement spending will

create (directly and indirectly) 5,700 jobs and $550 million in

industry sales in Illinois. Further, for every direct dollar of

NASA spending in this state, an additional i0 dollars of spending

v
Table EX.3

Estimated Sales and Jobs Created Ln Each State by Proposed

F¥ 1990 NASAProcurement Expenditures

State

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

M_nnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

NewHampshire

Employment Sales

(millions) (% of US) (number) (%of US)

$858.2 3.7 8,582 3.6

35.5 0.2 236 0.I

229.6 1.0 2,424 1.0

89.0 0.4 876 0.4

6,766.6 29.2 70,332 29.7

490.3 2.1 5,381 2.3

601.1 2.6 6,224 2.6

32.7 0.I 291 0.I

75.2 0.3 990 0.4

1,297.5 5.6 14,756 6.2

299.7 1.3 3,224 1.4

23.0 0.I 278 0.i

21.4 0.i 242 0.I

549.2 2.4 5,657 2.4

348.3 1.5 3,253 1.4

94.7 0.4 1,050 0.4

172.0 0.7 1,697 0.7

142.4 0.6 1,358 0.6

535.0 2.3 4,583 1.9

36.0 0.2 386 0.2

994.3 4.3 11,122 4.7

382.3 1.7 4,208 1.8

518.9 2.2 4,582 1.9

164.3 0.7 1,791 0.8

231.9 1.0 2,146 0.9

342.3 1.5 3,427 1.4

18.7 0.i 180 0.I

47.7 0.2 566 0.2

30.2 0.i 379 0.2

58.7 0.3 626 0.3

vi
Table EX.3 (continued)

Estimated Sales and Jobs Created in Each State by Proposed

FY 1990 NASAProcurement Expenditures

State

NewJersey

NewMexico

NewYork

North Carol£na

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

RhodeIsland

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Total

Sales

(millions) (% of US)

506.0 2.2

135.5 0.6

711.1 3.1

231.3 1.0

18.0 0.i

928.7 4.0

158.7 0.7

67.3 0.3

602.2 2.6

32.3 0.I

109.5 0.5

18.3 0.i

209.1 0.9

2,105.4 9.1

590.8 2.6

21.1 0.I

631.2 2.7

308.4 1.3

61.0 0.3

193.0 0.8

28.0 0.I

$23,153.2

Employment

(number) (% of US)

5,411 2.3

1,242 0.5

7,820 3.3

2,450 1.0

183 0.i

8,545 3.6

1,358 0.6

731 0.3

5,955 2.5

347 0.I

1,139 0.5

221 0.i

2,237 0.9

19,528 8.3

5,895 2.5

226 0.i

6,666 2.8

3,173 1.3

502 0.2

1,991 0.8

210 0.I

236,679

Source: Management information Services, Inc.; 1989.

vii
Table EX. 4

Economic Multipliers for Selected States Resulting From

Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures

_a

Michigan

Indiana

Illinois

Missouri

Oregon

North Carolina

Georgia

Wisconsin

Tennessee

New York

Pennsylvania

Kansas

Ohio

Massachusetts

Mississippi

Arizona

New Jersey

Texas

California

Alabama

Florida

14.0 to 1

12.0 to 1

9.8 to 1

8.3 to 1

6.7 to 1

5.6 to 1

5.5 to 1

5.2 to 1

5.1 to 1

4.6 to 1

4.0 to 1

3.8 to 1

3.8 to 1

2.7 to 1

2.1 to 1

2.0 to 1

2.0 to 1

1.8 to 1

1.8 to 1

1.4 to 1

i.i to 1

aRatio of total (direct plus indirect) economic benefits to direct

economic benefits.

source: Management information Services, Inc., 1989.

viii
Figure EX.2

NASA Indirect Economic Benefits by State

a <..J i 'Y"@C-1i" 1 ...."_ '

Total

Multiplier

Source: Management Information Services, Inc.; 1989.

10 or over

4to6

[]]] under ¢
will be generated indirectly by the NASA procurement budget.

This may seem counterintuative, since Illinois is not generally

considered to be a state that benefits greatly from the Space

Program. However, Illinois benefits substantially from NASA

spending. Its industries produce the goods and services required

indirectly by the recipients of NASA procurement awards: capital

goods, electronic components, scientific instruments, chemical

products, primary and fabricated metal products, specialized

business services, etc. Further, because of the widely based,

indirect nature of these economic benefits to the state, Illinois

will benefit greatly from NASA procurement spending in other states

on a wide variety of programs, and its benefits are not tied to a

specific contract, project, or program. In this sense, a state

like Illinois is a more certain beneficiary of NASA spending than

are some states receiving sizable prime contract awards.

The implications of these results are discussed.

The major conclusions of this study are:

o The detailed economic and job benefits of the U.S. Space

Program can be reliably estimated by industry and

occupation for the nation and for each state.

o The total (direct plus indirect) economic and employment

benefits are between two and three times larger than is

usually assumed, and are much more pervasive than is

generally recognized.

o The major beneficiaries -- specific industries,

occupations, and states -- include many which have

heretofore not been linked closely to the Space Program or

to NASA procurement.

o NASA spending plays a key role in supporting U.S. basic

manufacturing and high technology industries.

o NASA procurement expenditures have a disproportionately

large impact on the labor markets for scientists,

Engineers, and skilled workers.

o The estimates developed here are important for maintaining

a viable U.S. Space Program through the remainder of this

century.

X
LIST OF TABLES

EX. 1

EX. 2

EX. 3

EX.4

IV. 1

V.I

V.2

V.3

V.4

V.5

V.6

V.7

V.8

V.9

V.10

VI. 1

paqe

Indirect Economic Multipliers Resulting from

Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement--Selected Industries ...... iii

Jobs Created by Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement

Expenditures Within Selected Occupations,

Ranked by Relative Job Impact ................................ iv

Estimated Sales and Jobs Created in Each State

by Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures ............ vi

Economic Multipliers for Selected States Resulting

From Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures ........ viii

80-Order U.S. Input-Output Industries ......................... 8

Summary of NASA Procurement Awards, FY 1988 .................. 12

Overview of the Economic Benefits of Proposed

FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures ........................ 13

Impact of Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement

Expenditures on Output by Industry ........................... 14

Impact of Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement

Expenditures, Ranked by Industry ............................. 16

Impact of Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement

Expenditures, Ranked by Relative Industry Size ............... 17

Indirect Economic Multipliers Resulting from

Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement--Selected Industries ....... 19

Employment Created in Each Industry by Proposed

FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures ........................ 21

Jobs Created by Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement

Expenditures -- Major Occupational Groups .................... 23

Jobs Created by Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement

Expenditures Within Selected Occupations ..................... 24

Jobs Created by Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement

Expenditures Within Selected Occupations,

Ranked by Relative Job Impact ................................ 28

Estimated FY 1990 NASA Procurement Awards by

Type of Contractor and by State .............................. 31

xi
VI. 2

VI. 3

VI.4

VI. 5

VI.6

VI • 7

VI.8

Estimated FY 1990 NASA Procurement Awards by Type of

Contractor and by State (Percent Distribution) ............... 33

Estimated Sales and Jobs Created in Each State

by Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures ............ 36

Ranking of the Top 20 States on the Basis of Total

Industry Sales Generated by Proposed FY 1990 NASA

Procurement Expenditures ..................................... 38

Ranking of the Top 20 States on the Basis of Jobs

Created Per Capita by Proposed FY 1990 NASA

Procurement Expenditures ..................................... 39

Ranking of the Top 20 States on the Basis of Industry

Sales Generated Indirectly by Proposed FY 1990 NASA

Procurement Expenditures ..................................... 40

Economic Multipliers for Selected States Resulting

From Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures .......... 43

Categorization of the States Benefiting Most From

Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures ............... 46

Appendix: Detailed Occupational Jobs Created by

Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures ............... 52

xii
LIST OF FIGURES

EX.I

EX.2

IV. 1

IV.2

VI. i

VI.2

VI. 3

States Benefiting Most From U.S. Space Program,

Fiscal Year 1990 ........................................... ii

NASA Indirect Economic Benefits by State, Fiscal

Year 1990 .................................................. ix

Estimating the Economic and Employment Effects

of the U.S. Space Program ................................... 6

MISI National and Regional Analysis of the Impacts

of NASA Procurements ........................................ 7

NASA Prime Contract Awards, FY 1990, by State as a

Percent of the U.S. Total .................................. 35

NASA Indirect Economic Benefits by State, Fiscal

Year 1990 44

States Benefiting Most From U.S. Space Program,

Fiscal Year 1990 ............................................ 47

xiii
PREFACE

This study was undertaken by Management Information Services, Inc.

for the NASA Alumni League to determine the effects which the proposed

NASA procurement budget for Fiscal Year 1990 will likely have on the

nation's economy and on the economies of each state. An earlier study

by MISI for the NAL analyzed the impact of FY 1987 NASA procurement

expenditures.

XlV
I. INTRODUCTION

The long run economic benefits of the U.S. Space Program have been

identified over the past three decades. These include spin-offs,

support of research and development, creation of public goods, and the

development of new space industries. However, the immediate, near term

benefits to the nation's economy of NASA expenditures have not been

estimated. This is unfortunate, since NASA, like every major Federal

agency, should have some idea of the likely impact of its programs on

the economy, on specific industries and labor markets, and on regions

and states. Such economic impact information would be useful in

assessing the effects of agency budgets and could assist in program

planning.

Thus, an important question that must be addressed is the impact

that NASA spending is likely to have on a particular state, industry,

or labor market.

The MISI analysis presented here answers the question by showing

the direct and indirect economic benefits of proposed FY 1990 NASA

procurement expenditures to the nation and to each state.

Specifically, the analysis shows:

o The total economic benefits to the private sector -- increase

in economic product -- likely to accrue to the nation and to

each state from the proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement budget.

o The jobs and industry sales likely to be created in each state

by the procurement program.

o The jobs created within each of 475 occupations by NASA

procurement expenditures.

o The total Federal, state, and local government tax revenues

generated the NASA programs.

o The direct and the indirect sales created within each industry.

o The multiplier effect which NASA procurement has on the economy

of each state.

o The impact on key industries, occupations, and R&D sectors of

spending on NASA programs.

This type of analysis, while based on well established and

validated economic methodology, has never before been applied to the

U.S. Space Program or to the NASA budget. Given the intense current

debate over the future of the civilian Space Program, the analysis is

long overdue.
L

II. TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC RATIONALE FOR THE SPACE PROGRAM

Over the years advocates of the Space Program have identified

several types of economic benefits of the U.S. Space Program:

o public goods.

o spin-offs.

o R & D support.

o creation of new space industries.

Public Goods

Public goods are commodities which only the government can provide

in sufficient quantity, since their benefits cannot be captured by

private investors in the form of profit, and they remain underproduced

unless the government intervenes. For the Space Program these include

knowledge gained about the universe and it's origins, information on

the characteristics and the history of the earth and solar system, and

related basic scientific knowledge.

Spin-offs

Spin-offs are those technologically advanced products and

processes developed for the Space Program which ultimately find

productive uses in other areas--areas often unrelated to space

exploration. These include photovoltaics, advances in aerodynamic

design, enhanced telecommunications systems, breakthroughs in

microelectronics, improved chemical processes, and so forth.

Research and Development Support

The Space Program enhances the nation's technology base and that

of specific industries, and Program advocates argue that it is vital to

the technological competitiveness of U.S. industry. Studies have shown

that investments in NASA R & D have a return of between five and ten to

one over a 25 year horizon, and few doubt the importance of R & D

programs for the U.S. economy.

Creation of New Space-Based Industries

Advocates of ambitious space programs emphasize the potential for

creating new space-based industries, including private launch services,

materials processing in space and related applications of a

microgravity environment, remote imaging, infrastructure development,

and so forth. Obviously, without a strong U.S. government Space

Program, development of these new industries will be delayed and

2
opportunities lost to other nations.

The analysis developed by MISI for NAL provides another measure of

the economic effects of the Space Program, for it identifies the

specific industries, regions, and jobs benefiting the most from NASA

procurement expenditures. It thus provides findings necessary for

assessing the economic viability of the U.S. Space Program during the

1990s.
III. THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT ECONOMICAND EMPLOYMENT

BENEFITS OF EXPENDITURESON THE SPACE PROGRAM

Here we estimate the following benefits of proposed FY 1990 NASA

procurement expenditures:

o direct and indirect

o economic

o employment

o national

o state-specific

Direct and Indirect

The benefits estimated here include those resulting from the

initial procurement expenditures as well as those generated indirectly

throughout the economy by the expenditures. Where appropriate, the

multipliers (ratio of total benefits to direct benefits) are computed.

Economic

The benefits to each of 80 all-inclusive two-digit SIC industries

are estimated. The benefits are the increased output, sales, and

profits generated by the Space Program expenditures.

Employment

The total number of jobs created in each of the 80 industries and

in each of 475 all-inclusive occupations is estimated. The job data

pertain to full-time equivalent (FTE) person-years.

National

Output, sales, profits, and employment are estimated for each

industry at the national level, and for each occupation the total

number of jobs created nationwide is derived.

State-specific

Output, sales, profits, and employment are estimated for each

industry at the state level, for each occupation the total number of

jobs created within every state is derived, and the tax revenues

generated in the state are computed.

4
IV. THE MISI APPROACH: ESTIMATING THE TOTAL

(DIRECT PLUS INDIRECT) EFFECTS

The economic and employment effects of proposed FY 1990 NASA

procurement expenditures were computed using the Management Information

Services, Inc. data base and information system. A simplified version

of the MISI model is illustrated in Figure IV.l, and the specification

of the NASA budget simulations is shown in Figure IV.2.

The basis of the model used here is economic input-output

analysis. This analytical methodology was developed by Wassily

Leontief (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics), and

it has been widely used and validated over the past five decades by

economists in many nations.

The first step is the translation of expenditures for a program or

set of programs into per unit output requirements from every industry

in the economy. This is determined by four major factors: I) the

state of technology, 2) the distribution of expenditures, 3) the

specific program configuration, and 4) the direct industry requirements

structure. While the model contains 500 industries, in the work

conducted here an 80-order industry scheme was used -- see Table IV.I.

Second, the direct output requirements of every industry affected

as a result of expenditures on the program are estimated. These direct

requirements show, proportionately, how much an industry must purchase

from every other industry to produce one unit of output.

Direct requirements, however, give rise to subsequent rounds of

indirect requirements. For example, steel mills require electricity to

produce steel. But an electric utility requires turbines from a

factory to produce electricity. The factory requires steel from steel

mills to produce turbines, and the steel mill requires more

electricity, . . ., and so on.

The latter are the indirect requirements. The sum of the direct

plus the indirect requirements represents the total output requirements

from an industry necessary to produce one unit of output. Economic

input-output (I-O) techniques allow us to compute the direct as well as

the indirect production requirements, and these total requirements are

represented by the "inverse" equat_Qns in the model. The ratio of the

total requirements to the direct requirements is called the

input-output multiplier.

Thus, in the third step in the model the direct industry output

requirements are converted into total output requirements from every

industry by means of the input-output inverse equations. These

equations show not only the direct requirements, but also the second,

third, fourth, . . ., nth round indirect industry and service sector

requirements resulting from expenditures on the Space program.
6S61 ''OUl 'S_OTA_S UOT%eWlOIUl %uom_BeueN :_olnos

s°!l'rH H

Indlno/luawgc)Idtu_l

'so!|_ Joqcl/im!d_.-i

'.(l!^!lanpoJ d

8u!u!ml

pu_ uo!pt-mp_ "_II!_IS

lumugoldtu 3 _Jlsnpu I

i

_;IUOJd 'pappv anlr. A

_,. Sal_. S pue H

lndlno ,_lsnpul I_OJ.

I sv.aJV 01_1S I

-qns 'salmS suo!_la H

_;iuaulaJ ! nh;)_ H '_luatuaJ!nhaH

uo!DnpoJ d puno H UOll.3nl_u d

qlu pJ[ "pu_[ "Is I ,_n_npu I I._aj=(l

'(;]°l°uq :"![ i

IJ V aql 1,_ ,_'11_1_

meaBo_d _oeds "S'_ _q_ _o s%o_91_ %u_mXoId_ pue oTmouoo_ _q% 5uT%emT%s_

I'AI _anBTa
Figure IV.2

HISI National and Regional Analysis of the

Impacts of NASA Procurements

NASA Procurement Obligationsi

by State i

J

, I 1

i Prime Contracts Subcontracts

i in State l in State S

_r=_a_es/_

_S_t_e_d Industry

,L

MISI 1

Regional/National

l Economic and Demographic

_/_ Impaci Model

Direct Eonomic by andStateOutputIndirectI Direct and Indirect DireCtEmploymenbyandstatelnd_rec I

and Industry and Occupation [

Employment

by State

and Industry

I Ec°n_:_iiy!is mO_:_ph

National i

Occupational t

Shortage

Analysis

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989
Table IV.I

80-Order U.S. Input-Output Industries

[ndtLvLry tnuunn.b_r _nd title

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY. AND FISHERIES

Relstt_ C el'sKL_"

8IC co_s {I'J72

e_l(IOfl )

1. Ltv_tock snci livMtc, ci¢ products i pt. 01. pt 0'2-

2. Other ai"_cutturs| products . p', 01, pL 02

3. Forestry and ft.lhe¢y proouc'.a ...... I (_t;-4 ¢@_ CYST

4. Agrlcu._tLLrs[, forestry, and ha:'*ry servlc_ 0"_4.07 (eec_ OT_

0;:,5,293

MINING

.S Iron and ferrClHoy or_ rnlr_n| .................... 1Oh t_

6 _'on(e_'ou_ :netal ores udrtlng ................................ : 102-`5, pL [08. t0g

7. C_tl rv.tn|ng ............................................... tILL, pr,, Ill2, 1211,

pt. t_L2

I. Crude p_ole,.Lrn told ruLtura_ X_ ...................... 131, 132, pt. l.,._

9. Stone a,",d c_ay mlrun_" and q "ymg .................... Ill-5, pt. I¢8, lig

1,0. Chemic.At and [erULizet miner'., :D.Lm_g ........................ t47

CONSTRUCTION

II. New c_r_.ru_lon ....................................

12. M&Inten=_c ,m and radar co1_tr,acuon ........................

M ANUFACTURFHG

13. OrdnL_c8 Lnd IW.A_nM ..................................... 3482"-4, 348g, 3761,

3795

14. Food and k|ndr_'d products ................................... 20

15 Tob_co m_tnuf_c_uz_ ......................................... 21

16. Bro_d and nL,'row {*bn_, ys, rn and thre_ miLLs ................ _t-4, _, 2_

17. Misc_ll_netus tez_le |oods _nd flora" c_re.nn4&"a ................. 2"_, 2_9

115. Apparel ........................................................ 225

19, MLscellaneou,s fsbric_ted tezt_te p_oduc_ .................... Z3g

_0. Lumber Lad wood products, ez_pt cont._an_uns ................ 241,-;], 2448, 2,4g

21. Wood cont_,iners ............................................... 2441, 2449

_,o. Hou..s.ehold fu$'ni_u'e ............................................ 2.51

9._. Other fur'nit_s tad _x_.u-"es .................................... 252-4, 2,_

24. Ps[;_r and allied products, ex¢=ept contmner5 _nd boxes ........ _I-4,

2_. Fzperbc4xd c_nt_uner_ and boxss ............................... _,$

2_. Pnntinl ind publishlrl[ .................................. 27

27, Ch(.,"nlc.a, ts and s4tect.e<' chtrn_c_l produc_s ...................... 2_I, 286.-7, _9

'_. Pl_tv", _,nd syn_.hetlc m_.terla_ ............................. 2_2

2g. Drugs, cle._nin| and toilet prep_,_tlon.s ......................... 2_-4

_w3 P_In_ and l[lied product._ ..................................... 2_

• 31. Petroleum refln[n[ and rel&1,ewi industries ......................

32. Rubber _nd m_scell_neou_ pLutlc_ pr_duct_ .......... ........

_la. I.,4_ther t_,nmng l_nd flr_shin¢ ................................. ;]II

34. Fottwe_r and other leather products .......................... 313--?, 319

_S. G[_,s and [I_,,s products ....................................... 321-3

_,, Stone and clay products ...................................... 132_-'g

37. Primary iron tnd steel m_nur_:turing ..................... 331-2, 3.3g, 34_2

3_ Primary nonferTo,_ rn_als rn_nuI_tct_unn_ .................... _ 3,3.3--4,346a

341.

_. Metal contlt_ner_ ...................................

_.'l_u_tin[, plumbln[, _r.d L_bF" ._..a ._c_u;_,_ metal pr_-!,-cts ..' 343-.4

tl. Scow rn&ehtne products _nd slam i%g_ ........... _ 345, 3465.-6,

42, Other ['abrlctt_d metal _>dutts ........... : .......... ! 342,347, }4Q

43. En|tne_ |nd turbines ............................... ,i 3,5l

44, F_rrn l_nd |arden mlw:hin=¢y ................................ i

3_2

4_. Construction and rnlntn_ ma.chtnery ...................... ! _._I-3

445 M_,erlaLs h_ndIinll rnlw_htnery m'_d e<:_u_Dment ......... 1 3,534-7

47. Met&Lworktn[ ml_.hinery _tnd e.quiprnent ................. I KS4

48. Bp_cLsl Induatry machinery _nd equipment .............. I _

tg. General indu.skdll rn_'hinery and e.qu_prnent ............. 1 3.,W5

.._). Mlsc_Hsmeo_5 ml_:hinery, e,e._pt electrlc_l .... I 33g

,51,.Office, c imputing, snd sccountln[ rnschlna_ .......... i 3.57

,52. Serv_ct industry rn_chlnes .................................... _ 3,_

Re!etad Ce _ v.m.

8IC ::,4_ I_'?

! ed*.:-c_)

pt. iS--IT, pt. 108,

I)t I).12. p1,. 1212,

IX. L48

pt. 1,5--17,pL 13,8

53 El,_t,"ic.a.l tr_namtMio,a Lad dl_unOut, _ ,,,<Iv_prn_t _nd in- I

- d u.5triM J,p peu'-,_us ................................. ! 3_I-2, _

M. Hou._ho[d app:_nc._ ............ ,_4

XS. Ele_rlc Ughtmg L"_ w_rla4[ eqLdpraent ......... i

56. RLdto, TV rand commu.n.k_Ion _'4Lupr.%_ .......... ]

57 Ele.ctron_c compo_'_ents and _c.e..s_r_e_ .............. I: :}67

e _.e_:C,"%c..,&_ m.:....:n_rT, equdPmeot, _md supp_e_ -i _

i

;_. Motor vehicle,s _ e_,.upm_nt. ." ............... _ 3"71

_. Aircraft _acl _ .................................. ! 37"2

_l. Other tr_n.spo_atton _(lu_pment ................ ! 3,"3-5, 3"_'2 3";'99 ?..431

82. Profem(xtsl, saenLLflc, and c_ntrolhn_ _nab'urnent_ and sup,pi_ ' 3_t, _.-* .,_-_ 384,

_4. Mi_caU_,n_ou..s m_nu.la,cturin& .................................. ! 39

i

3.ANS?ORTATION, COMMUNICATION, AND UTIId']rIF.._ I

_. T_por_sUoa _ad w_r_d_otts/ng ............................... 40-2, 44-7

. Comrnunlc_on.s axr.._t rt_l*o _ud TV ................... _t-2, _g R_:[Io _nd TV bro_c_stlrql ................................... 4_

E_._ctric, SM. w_.&, snd un.iut_y s_rv'tcJ_ ...................... 49

WHOLE3AL_ AND RETALL TRADE

Bg, Whol_e, le_md r_til_'l_, ..................................... ! `5_37. 5Or _ _'_

FINANCE. INSURANCE. AND REAL F.STATE

70. Finln_ and i_u/"_Jlca ...................................... 60-64, 8T

71. R_I _t._ m,a'_ r_nt_l ...................................... 6S-4, pt. l._t

SERVICES

7"2. Hotala snd bxi_n|. _I -ud .*p_r _r_e_ (axcs_. _C, . TO-7., T_?,-4, pC.

7(W;4, pc. 7_

74. E_tin| _nd dnnkinlt p1_es ................................... _t,

"/,5. Automoi_le r_p_c _nd s_r'_c_ ................................. 75

76. Amusements .................................................. _8-9

77. He_Ith, eduCattlont, l, and Socnlt| servicm s_d nonp¢oflt ar¢_:_,i¢ C74, _0 (excl. _42),

Uor_ ......................................................... S2-84. _, 8g_

GOVERNMENT E NTE RP_RISt[_

715. FedarM Government ent_rpri.ses ............................... not _pDbc_ble

7g. State snd locsl gov_'ament ent_rprLs_ ......................... _o_ applic_tbte

DUMMY AND SPECIAL INDUSTRIKS

80. Noncomp_'able imports .....................................

81. Sc_p, used, and secondhand goods ...........................

82, Goverr_ent industry .........................................

_3, Rest o! the world industry ..................................

t4. Household indvst-y. ..................................

K_. _nventory taluat_on &dju.st.ment ..........................

FINAL DEMAND

h _1o Person_! consumption ezp_n_tur_ .............................

_2l O[O_ private domestic fixed Investment ...................

g3. Ch&n[e in bustne_ intentories ............................

_, Exports ...................................................... I

• 5 Imports ............................................. : ........

' _: Federal Government purch_es, rt_t_on_l defen_ ...........

t _T Fode_l Oovernrnent purch_s, nondefense ................... ;

I _ St _te and local governrn e n1, purcb_wuk _d u,'=tlo_ ............... !

99. Sta, te and local government pu.,'ch_, o_her

i

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

ORIGINAL PA_E iS

OF POOR QUALITY
Next, the total output requirements from each industry are used to

compute sales volumes, profits, and value added for each industry.

Then, using data on manhours, labor requirements, and productivity,

employment requirements within each industry are estimated. This

allows computation of the total number of jobs created within each

industry.

The next step requires the conversion of total employment

requirements by industry into job requirements for specific occupations

and skills. To accomplish this, MISI utilizes data on the occupational

composition of the labor force within each industry and estimates job

requirements for 475 specific occupations encompassing the entire U.S.

labor force. This permits estimation of the impact of the program on

jobs for specific occupations and on skills, education, and training

requirements.

Utilizing the modeling approach outlined above, MISI estimated the

o ent personal income, corporate sales and profits,

effects on empl ym ' .... ,,_ted States and in each state.

x revenues in Ln_ u**_

and.gove[nmen_ _en developed for detailed industries and occup_tlons.

5stlma_es w_L ........ s the baseline ana repr_u this ana±ysls seL v_ The results of ' and statewide

nsive and detailed estimates of the natlonal comprehe .......... ;_ .... _ n the U.S. Space program.

economic benefits oI _x_,L__ o

The next step in the analysis (not conducted here) is to assess

the economic impact on specific cities and Metroplitan Statistical

Areas (MSAs). The MISI approach permits disaggregation to the level of

most U.S. MSAs and, if desired, to the county level.

Empirically, the basis of the sub-state estimates is the Regional

Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) developed by the U.S. Commerce

Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) over the past two

decades.

RIMS II is based on economic input-output analysis which shows,

for each industry, industrial distributions of'inp uts purchased and

outputs sold. A typical input-output table in RIMS II is constructed

primarily from two sources: I) BEA's national I-O table, which shows

the input and the output structures of more than 500 U.S. industries,

and 2) BEA's four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) county

wage-and-salary data, which were used to adjust the national I-O table

to show the Rochester MSA's industrial structure and trading patterns.

The main data sources for RIMS II permit economic impacts to be

estimated for any region composed of one or more counties and for any

industry in the national I-O table. RIMS II can be used to estimate

the impacts of project and program expenditures by industry on regional

output (gross receipts or sales), earnings (the sum of wages and

salaries, proprietors' income, and other labor income, less employer

contributions to private pension and welfare funds), and employment.

The use of the RIMS II methodology has been validated in independent

studies over the past two decades.
For MSAs the MISI model permits estimation of the impact on

requirements for specific occupations. To accomplish this it utilizes

the MISI occupation-by-industry matrix, the coefficients of which show

the percent distribution of occupational employment among all

industries. The 80-by-475 matrix was developed from the 1983 Current

Population Survey, updated by MISI to 1990, and is aggregated to 39

industries to conform to the RIMS II industry aggregation.

The MISI model was developed using publicly available data from

the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Labor. The

data on proposed NASA procurement expenditures used in the study are

publicly available from the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

i0
V. BENEFITS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

We first wish to determine the total (direct plus indirect)

economic and employment impact at the national level of proposed FY

1990 NASA procurement expenditures. We simulated the effects of the

proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement awards ($11.3 billion--see Table V.l)

on sales, earnings, profits, and employment within 80 all-inclusive

industries.

These impacts at the national level are summarized in Table V.2.

This table shows that in 1990 NASA procurement of $11.3 billion is

estimated to:

o generate $23.2 billion in total industry sales.

o have a multiplier effect on the economy of 2.1.

o create 237,000 jobs.

o create $2.4 billion in total industry profits.

o generate $7.4 billion in Federal, state, and local government

tax revenues.

The total sales generated within each industry are shown in Table

V.3, and these industries are ranked in Table V.4. As expected, the

largest total impacts of NASA procurement are concentrated in Aircraft

and Parts, Ordnance and Accessories, Radio, T.V., and Communications

Equipment, and related industries.

The rankings in Table V.4 show the total impact on each industry's

output of NASA FY 1990 procurement spending and are useful in

determining where the largest dollar impacts will be. However, the

size of these industries differs greatly: The output of the Business

Services industry ($551 billion) is 17 times that of the Ordnance and

Accessories industry ($32 billion); the output of the Transportation

and Warehousing industry ($337 billion) is 6 times that of the

Electronic Components industry ($58 billion). Thus a somewhat more

meaningful measure of the relative importance of NASA procurement for

each industry is the total output requirements of that industry

generated by NASA procurement as a percent of the total industry

output. These rankings of relative impacts are given in Table V.5.

This table shows that, in relative terms (based on industry

size), NASA procurement spending impacts a somewhat different profile

of industries than indicated in Table V.5. Some industries for which

NASA procurement generates small amounts of output requirements, such

as Wooden Containers ($5 million), Iron Ore Mining ($23 million), and

Misc. Fabricated Metal Products ($98 million), are nevertheless greatly

affected because of their relatively small size. In fact, based on

percent impact, the Wooden Container industry is one of the main

beneficiaries of NASA expenditures.

ii
Table V.1

Summaryof NASAProcurement Awards, FY 1988

Total

Business Firms

Rockwell International Corp.

Downey,CA

Lockheed SpaceOperations Co.

KennedySpaceCenter, FL

Morton Thiokol Inc.

Brigham City, UT

Martin Marietta Corp.

NewOrleans, LA

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Huntington Beach, CA

Educational & Nonprofit

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

Assn. Univ. Research & Astron.

Baltimore, MD

NewMexico St. Univ.(Las Cruces)

Palestine, TX

Universities SpaceResearch

Columbia, MD

Mass. Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Subcontracts

Other GovernmentAgencies

Air Force

Treasury Department

Outside United States

Amount

(millions) Percent

$9,545.1 100 -

7,274.9 76 i00

1,714.2 - 24

474.3 - 7

422.8 - 6

341.0 - 5

299.1 - 4

499.8 5 100

27.7 - 6

23.7 - 5

19.2 - 4

17.0 - 3

14.3 - 3

979.9 i0 i00

625.3 - 64

734.6 8 i00

324.8 - 44

176.7 - 24

55.9 I -

Source: NASAAnnual Procurement Report, FY1988;MISI; 1989.

12
Table V.2

Overview of the Economic Benefits of Proposed

FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures

Procurement Expenditures (millions)

Total Sales Generated (millions)

Economic Multiplier

Total Jobs Created

Total Profits Generated (millions)

Total Federal, State, and Local

Government Tax Revenues

Generated (millions)

$11,300

$23,153

2.1

236,679

$2,443

$7,431

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989

13
Table V.3

Impact of Proposed FY 1990 NASAProcurement Expenditures

on Output by Industry

Industry Title

Sales

(millions)

Livestock & livestock products

Other agricultural products

Forestry & fishery products

Agricultural, forestry & fishery services

Iron & ferroalloy ores mining

Nonferrous metal ores mining

Coal mining

Crude petroleum & natural gas

Stone & clay mining & quarrying

Chemical & fertilizer mineral mining

Newconstruction

Maintenance & repair construction

Ordnance& accessories

Food & kindred products

Tobacco manufactures

Broad & narrow fabrics, yarn & thread mills

Miscellaneous textile goods & floor coverings

Apparel

Miscellaneous fabricated textile products

Lumber & woodproducts, exc. containers

Woodcontainers

Household furniture

Other furniture & fixtures

Paper & allied products

Paperboard containers & boxes

Printing & publishing

Chemicals & selected chemical products

Plastics & synthetic materials

Drugs, cleaning & toilet preparations

Paints & allied products

Petroleum refining & related industries

Rubber & miscellaneous plastics products

Leather tanning & finishing

Footwear & other leather products

Glass & glass products

Stone & clay products

Primary iron &.steel manufacturing

Primary nonferrous metals manufacturing

Metal containers

Heating, fabricated metal products

Screw machine products & stampings

Other fabricated metal products

$33.9

117.7

13.9

20.7

23.2

41.3

86.0

776.4

18.4

10.7

317.2

679.3

2,438.1

107.1

0.i

92.7

23.9

62.3

24.0

125.8

4.8

14.6

11.4

143.6

55.7

248.8

376.9

131.7

46.6

35 2

949 7

288 0

1 8

4 8

36 3

119 2

512 0

671 4

19.0

186.5

156.1

227.0

14
Table V.3 (continued)

Impact of ProposedFY 1990 NASAProcurement Expenditures

on Output by Industry

industry Title

Sales

(millions)

Engines & turbines

Farm & garden machinery

Construction & mining machinery

Materials handling machinery

Metalworking machinery

Special industry machinery

General industrial machinery

Miscellaneous machinery, except electrical

Office, computing, & accounting machines

Service industry machines

Electrical transmission equipment

Householdappliances

Electric lighting & wiring equipment

Radio, TV & communication equipment

Electronic components

Miscellaneous electrical machinery

Motor vehicles & equipment

Aircraft & parts

Other transportation equipment

Professional & scientific supplies

Optical & photographic equipment

Miscellaneous manufacturing

Transportation & warehousing

Communications, except radio & TV

Radio & TV broadcasting

Electric, gas, & sanitary services

Wholesale & retail trade

Finance & insurance

Real estate & rental

Hotels & personal services

Business services

Eating & drinking places

Automobile repair & service

Amusements

Health & educational & nonprofit

Federal governmententerprises

State & local government enterprises

152.2

9.8

40.3

28.9

98.1

19.2

156.1

184.2

217.9

35.6

197.2

21.8

63.7

I, 392.6

722.1

50.1

354.7

3,647.1

490.2

141.9

136.6

36.3

982.5

257.9

49.4

784.0

841.2

272.6

430.9

164.8

1,244.9

209 3

97 4

57 1

80 4

106 2

124 2

Total $23,153.2

Source: ManagementInformation Services, Inc.; 1989.

15
Table V.4

Impact of ProposedFY 1990 NASAProcurement

Expenditures, Rankedby Industry

Industry Title

Percent

of Total

Aircraft & parts 15.8

Ordnance& accessories 10.5

Radio, TV & communication equipment 6.0

Business services 5.4

Transportation & warehousing 4.2

Petroleum refining & related industries 4.1

Wholesale & retail trade 3.6

Electric, gas, & sanitary services 3.4

Crude petroleum & natural gas 3.4

Electronic components 3.1

Maintenance & repair construction 2.9

Primary nonferrous metals manufacturing 2.9

Primary iron & steel manufacturing 2.2

Other transportation equipment 2.1

Real estate & rental 1.9

Chemicals & selected chemical products 1.6

Motor vehicles & equipment 1.5

Newconstruction 1.4

Rubber & miscellaneous plastics products 1.2

Finance & insurance 1.2

Communications, except radio & TV I.I

Printing & publishing i.i

Other fabricated metal products 1.0

Office, computing, & accounting machines 0.9

Eating & drinking places 0.9

Electrical transmission equipment 0.9

Heating, fabricated metal products 0.8

Miscellaneous machinery, except electrical 0.8

Hotels & personal services 0.7

Screw machineproducts & stampings 0.7

All Other 49 Industries 12.7

Total i00

Sou[ce: ManagementInformation Services, Inc.; 1989.

16
Table V.5

Impact of Proposed 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures,

Ranked by Relative Industry Size

(millions of dollars)

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

Ordnance and Accessories

Aircraft and Parts

Radio, TV, and Communications Equipment

Electronic Components and Accessories

Primary Nonferrous Metals Manufactuirng

Engines and Turbines

Misc. Machinery, Except Electrical

Nonferrous Metal Ores Mining

Primary Iron and Steel Manufacturing

Iron and Ferroally Ores Mining

Output _

$2,438

3,647

1,393

722

671

152

184

41

512

23

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Wooden Containers

General Industrial Machinery

Electrical Transmission and Distribution

Equipment

Optical, Ophthalmic, and Photographic

Equipment and Supplies

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas

Screw Machine Products and Stampings

Misc. Fabricated Metal Products

Metalworking Machinery and Equipment

Professional, Scientific, and Controlling

Instruments and Supplies

Heating, Plumbing, and Fabricated Stuctural

Metal Products

5

156

197

137

776

156

227

98

142

187

aTotal output requirements generated by proposed FY 1990 NASA

procurement expenditures

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989

17
More important, virtually all of the industries in Table V.5 are

basic manufacturing and/or high technology industries. While it has

often been hypothesized that NASA spending supports the R & D, high

technology, electronics, and related industries, the data in Table V.5

show that this is indeed true. However, it is not generally recognized

that NASA spending plays a key role in supporting such basic U.S.

industries as Iron and Steel Manufacturing, Nonferrous Metals

Manufacturing, Ores Mining, and General Industrial Machinery.

This point is further emphasized in Table V.6, which shows (for

selected industries) the indirect economic multipliers resulting from

proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement expenditures. These multipliers

represent, for the specific industry, the ratio of total to direct

output requirements deriving from the 1990 NASA procurement budget.

The higher the multiplier, the greater are the indirect requirements

for the output of the industry generated by NASA procurement spending.

Thus, the multiplier for the Electronic Components industry (6.7) is

relatively high because large volumes of electronic equipment are

required indirectly to produce NASA procurements. Conversely, the

multiplier for the Aircraft and Parts Industry (1.2) is low because,

although large procurements are made directly from this industry in the

NASA program, the indirect requirements generated are relatively low.

That is, not many airplanes are required indirectly to produce

airplanes, but large amounts of electronic components are.

The data in Table V.6 show that, per dollar of direct procurement

expenditure, NASA programs will result in widely varying indirect

effects among industries. These range from indirect multipliers as

high as 41.8 for Iron and Steel Manufacturing. 13.5 for Electric

Lighting and Wiring Equipment, and 8.1 for Metalworking Machinery to

lows near two for Motor Vehicles and Equipment and near one for Engines

and Turbines and Aircraft and Parts. In other words, the 1990 NASA

procurement budget is estimated to create, indirectly, nearly $7

dollars in sales in Electronic Components for every dollar directly

procured in that industry, while it will create, indirectly, only about

one dollar of sales indirectly in the Aircraft and Parts industry for

every direct dollar of procurement in that industry.

As noted, this result is not surprising. Aircraft and motor

vehicles are final products whose components do not enter into the

production of other commodities, whereas electronic components are

products required in the production of most other goods NASA purchases.

The support that NASA procurement provides (indirectly) for basic

U.S. manufacturing industries noted in the discussion of Tables V.4 and

V.5 is abundantly clear in Table V.6. Virtually all of the industries

with the high multipliers are basic manufacturing industries

(concentrated, as noted in the next chapter, in the "rustbelt"

states).

This illustrates why it is necessary in assessing the impact of

NASA procurement to examine the total impact on the economy, not just

the direct procurement expenditures:

18
Table V.6

Indirect Economic Multipliers Resulting from Proposed

NASA FY 1990 Procurement Expenditures -- Selected Industries

Industry Multiplier a

Primary Iron and Steel Manufacturing

Primary Nonferrours Metals Manufacturing

Electric Lighting and Wiring Equipment

Rubber and Misc. Plastics Products

Metalworking Machinery

Electronic Components

Misc. Fabricated Metal Products

Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services

Chemicals and Selected Chemical Products

Metal Containers

Wholesale and Retail Trade

Communications, except Radio and Television

Business Services

Electrical Transmission Equipment

Transportation and Warehousing

Electrical Transmission Equipment

Transportation and Warehousing

41.8

30.0

13.5

8.3

8.1

6.7

5.9

4.5

3.2

3.2

3.0

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.3

2.2

AVERAGE, ALL INDUSTRIES 2.1

Motor Vehicles and Equipment

Optical, Ophthalmic, and Photgraphic Equipment

and Supplies

Petroleum Refining and Related Industries

Office, Computing, and Accounting Machines

Engines and Turbines

Aircraft and Parts

Miscellaneous Transportation Equipment

2.0

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.4

1.2

i.i

aRatio of total to direct output requirements.

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989.

19
o In terms of direct procurement, NASA requires about $12 million

from the Iron and steel industry.

o In total, however, NASA procurement generates requirements for

well over $500 million from this industry.

As discussed below, similar relationships exist between direct and

indirect effects, and the consequent multipliers, at the state level.

Table V.7 shows the total employment created in each private

sector industry by proposed 1990 NASA procurement expenditures.

The jobs estimated here are in private industry and do not include

NASA employees or Federal government workers. If these categories of

workers were included in the analysis the employment estimates would be

increased by about 25,000 jobs. However, the focus here is on the jobs

created in the private sector by NASA procurement spending. Further,

it is self-evident that the NASA budget pays the salaries of NASA

employees. Nevertheless, given the given the high concentration of

scientists, engineers, and computer specialists employed directly by

NASA, the Agency's employees must be taken into consideration when

assessing the overall impact of NASA spending on the labor market for

scientists, engineers, and skilled workers.

The data in Table V.7 illustrate that the distribution of jobs by

industry differs in important respects from the distribution of sales

shown in Table V.3. Thus, while large numbers of jobs are created in

industries such as Aircraft, Ordnance, Business Services, and

Communications Equipment, where the generated output requirements are

large, employment of equal magnitude is also created in service

industries such as Wholesale and Retail Trade, Transportation,

Warehousing, Restaurants, and Hotels.

Employment created in these latter industries is large because

they are very labor intensive and have low capital labor ratios and low

productivity. Because of these factors the types of jobs created in

these industries is relatively low skilled and pays relatively low

wages.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that NASA procurement

spending generates large numbers of jobs in industries not usually

associated with the Space Program or the aerospace sector. In fact, as

Table V.7 shows, 1990 NASA procurement spending is estimated to create

more jobs in Wholesale and Retail Trade than in the Communications

Equipment industry, and to generate more employment in Transportation

and Warehousing than in the Electronic Components industry.

Table V.8 shows the employment created by NASA procurement

disaggregated among major occupational groups, and Table V.9 further

disaggregates this employment among 115 occupations selected from the

475 occupations for which job requirements were estimated.[l] These

tables show that, as expected, the jobs created are disproportionately

in technical, skilled, and specialized occupations. Thus, 1990 NASA

procurement spending will create jobs for 17,000 Engineers (seven

2O
Table V.7

EmploymentCreated in Each Industry by Proposed FY 1990

NASAProcurement Expenditures

Industry Title Employment

Livestock & livestock products

Other agricultural products

Forestry & fishery products

Agricultural, forestry & fishery services

Iron & ferroalloy ores mining

Nonferrous metal ores mining

Coal mining

Crude petroleum & natural gas

Stone & clay mining & quarrying

Chemical & fertilizer mineral mining

Newconstruction

Maintenance & repair construction

Ordnance & accessories

Food & kindred products

Tobacco manufactures

Broad & narrow fabrics, yarn & thread mills

Miscellaneous textile goods & floor coverings

Apparel

Miscellaneous fabricated textile products

Lumber& woodproducts, exc. containers

Woodcontainers

Household furniture

Other furniture & fixtures

Paper & allied products

Paperboard containers & boxes

Printing & publishing

Chemicals & selected chemical products

Plastics & synthetic materials

Drugs, cleaning & toilet preparations

Paints & allied products

Petroleum refining & related industries

Rubber & miscellaneous plastics products

Leather tanning & finishing

Footwear & other leather products

Glass & glass products

Stone & clay products

Primary iron & steel manufacturing

Primary nonferrous metals manufacturing

Metal containers

Heating, fabricated metal products

Screw machine products & stampings

Other fabricated metal products

322

2,568

III

829

144

419

511

3,051

216

57

3,750

7,132

20,651

556

0

915

179

1,190

348

1,475

65

260

143

837

440

"3,028

1,832

552

287

193

1,225

3,058

18

Ii0

370

1,274

3,400

4,035

87

2,278

1,436

2,801

21
Table V.7 (continued)

EmploymentCreated in Each Industry by Proposed FY 1990

NASAProcurement Expenditures

Industry Title Employment

Engines & turbines

Farm & garden machinery

Construction & mining machinery

Materials handling machinery

Metalworking machinery

Special industry machinery

General industrial machinery

Miscellaneous machinery, except electrical

Office, computing, & accounting machines

Service industry machines

Electrical transmission equipment

Householdappliances

Electric lighting & wiring equipment

Radio, TV & communication equipment

Electronic components

Miscellaneous electrical machinery

Motor vehicles & equipment

Aircraft & parts

Other transportation equipment

Professional & scientific supplies

Optical & photographic equipment

Miscellaneous manufacturing

Transportation & warehousing

Communications, except radio & TV

Radio & TV broadcasting

Electric, gas, & sanitary services

Wholesale & retail trade

Finance & insurance

Real estate & rental

Hotels & personal services

Business services

Eating & drinking places

Automobile repair & service

Amusements

Health & educational & nonprofit

Federal government enterprises

State & local government enterprises

Total

925

87

291

290

1,401

210

1,547

2,568

1,998

297

2,317

175

723

10,319

10,918

442

1,664

33,808

5,785

1,921

996

510

12,910

2,249

518

3,136

19,374

3,677

1,806

4,761

21,748

6,812

1,044

1,219

2,000

2,415

1,667

236,679

Source: ManagementInformation Services, Inc.; 1989.

22
Table V.8

Jobs Created by Proposed FY 1990 NASAProcurement Expenditures --

Major Occupational Group

Major Occupational Category

Managerial and Professional Specialty Occupations

Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations

Professional specialty occupations

Technical, Sales, and Administrative Support Occupations

Technicians and related support occupations

Sales occupations

Administrative support occupations, including clerical

Service Occupations

Protective service occupations

Service occupations, except protective

Farming, Forestry, and Fishing Occupations

Farm operators and managers

Other agricultural and related occupations

Forestry and logging occupations

Fishers, hunters, and trappers

Precision Production, Craft, and Repair Occupations

Mechanics and repairers

Construction trades

Extractive occupations

Precision production occupations

Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers

Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors

Transportation and material moving occupations

Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers

Total

Jobs

26,431

33,073

11,292

16,319

35,399

1,796

12,915

1,401

1,878

309

71

12,763

9,551

1,129

20,930

32,010

11,083

8,330

236,679

Source: Management Information Services, Inc.; 1989.

23
Table V.9

Jobs Created by Proposed 1990 NASA Procurement

Expenditures Within Selected Occupations

Occupation Jobs

Financial Managers

Accountants and Auditors

Management Analysts

Personnel and Training Specialists

Buyers, Wholesale and Retail Trade

Inspectors, Except Construction

Architects

Metallurgical Engineers

Aerospace Engineers

Chemical Engineers

Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Industrial Engineers

Mechanical Engineers

Surveyors

Computer Systems Analysts

Statisticians

Chemists

Geologists and Geodeists

Biological and Life Scientists

Registered Nurses

Pharmacists

Economists

Psychologists

Lawyers

Technical Writers

Designers

Photographers

Public Relations Specialists

Clinical Laboratory Technicians _

Electrical and Electronics Engineering Technicians

Drafting Occupations

Computer Programmers

Tool Programmers

Sales Engineers

Sales Representatives

Cashiers

Supervisors, Financial Records

Computer Operators

Secretaries

Receptionists

683

2,604

355

686

25O

139

181

344

3,441

476

5,304

2,288

2,413

46

1,620

40

412

256

27

367

139

316

103

1,099

329

1,029

203

319

40

2,404

1,174

2,736

8

167

3,000

2,442

173

2,555

7,733

650

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989.

24
Table V.9 (Continued)

Occupation Jobs

Personnel Clerks

Bookkeepers and Accounting Clerks

Payroll Clerks

Telephone Operators

Dispatchers

Production Coordinators

Shipping and Receiving Clerks

Weighers and Checkers

General Office Clerks

Proofreaders

Supervisors, Guards

Kitchen Workers

Janitors and Cleaners

Transportation Attendants

Horticultural Specialty Farmers

Farm Workers

Graders and Sorters

Timber Cutting and Logging Occupations

Automobile Mechanics

Bus and Truck Engine Mechanics

Small Engine Repairers

Heavy Equipment Mechanics

Machinery Maintenance Occupations

Data Processing Equipment Repairers

Telephone Installers

Miscellaneous Electronic Equipment Repairers

Heating and Air Conditioning Mechanics

Mechanical Control Repairers

Millwrights

Brickmasons and Stonemasons

Carpenters

Electricians

Glaziers

Structural Metal Workers

Supervisors, Extractive Occupations

Explosives Workers

Mining Machine Operators

Miscellaneous Mining Occupations

Tool and Die Makers

Machinists

146

3,424

683

226

327

1,307

1,284

299

1,333

36

146

184

3,458

224

9

1,142

32

275

945

694

156

790

76

361

840

238

416

91

224

272

2,490

1,713

85

163

311

139

ii0

190

1,272

3,476

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989.

25
Table V.9 (Continued)

occupation Jobs

Precision Grinders

Sheetmetal Workers

Upholsterers

Patternmakers

Electrical Equipment Assemblers

Inspectors and Testers

Water and Sewage Treatment Plant Operators

Drilling Machine Operators

Forging Machine Operators

Metal Plating Machine Operators

Sawing Machine Operators

Photoengravers and Lithographers

Textile Sewing Machine Operators

Packaging and Filling Machine Operators

Separating Machine Operators

Crushing and Grinding Machine Operators

Photographic Process Machine Operators

Welders and Cutters

Assemblers

Production Inspectors and Examiners

Truck Drivers

Parking Lot Attendants

Locomotive Operating Occupations

Sailors and Deckhands

Operating Engineers

Hoist and Winch Operators

Crane and Tower Operators

Excavating and Loading Machine Operators

Grader, Dozer, and Scraper Operators

Miscellaneous Material Moving Equipment Operators

Helpers, Construction Trades

Helpers, Extractive Occupations

Construction Laborers

Stevedores

Stock Handlers and Baggers

154

1,523

126

182

2,047

1,556

145

467

68

394

188

88

1,024

908

139

63

156

2,375

6,523

3,579

5,892

57

202

44

320

113

490

142

177

414

256

19

956

102

884

Total, All Occupations* 236,679

*Totals include data for the 360 occupations not listed separately.

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989.

26
percent of total employment created), including 3,441 Aeronautical

engineers (6.3 percent of the total employed in private industry),

5,300 Electrical Engineers (1.3 percent of the total employed in

private industry), 2,600 Accountants, 400 Chemists, I,i00 Lawyers,

1,000 Designers, 4,600 Engineering Technicians, 1,600 Computer Systems

Analysts, 2,000 Industrial Machinery Repairers, 2,500 Carpenters, 1,500

Sheetmetal Workers, 3,500 Machinists, and 2,400 Welders.

However, Tables V.8 and V.9 also demonstrate that the Space

Program generates many jobs for virtually all categories of workers.

In fact, the 1990 NASA procurement budget will create more jobs (3,400)

for Bookkeepers than for Aeronautical Engineers, it will create more

jobs (7,700) for Secretaries than for Electrical Engineers, more jobs

(700) for Personnel and Labor Relations Workers than for Chemists, more

jobs (3,000) for Cashiers than for Accountants, more jobs for Shipping

Clerks (1,300) than for Designers, more jobs (2,200) for Stock Clerks

than for Computer Systems Analysts, more jobs (5,900) for Truck Drivers

than for Machinists, and more jobs for Janitors (3,500) than for

Welders.

This again illustrates the pervasive nature of the economic and

employment impacts of the Space Program.

Nevertheless, while the total number of jobs created in different

occupations is important, these absolute numbers do not convey the

significance of the NASA programs for specific occupations, especially

the science, engineering, and related occupations, and several

considerations are in order:

o First, there are many times more janitors, clerks,

salespersons, etc., than aerospace engineers, computer

scientists, or physicists, and a comparison of absolute numbers

can be misleading.

o Second, the time and the money required to educate a scientist,

engineer, or skilled worker represents a large private and

public investment in human capital.

o Third, there is widespread concern that the U.S. faces

potential shortages within many science and engineering

occupations during the 1990s.

A more meaningful comparison of the effect of NASA spending is

given in Table V.10, which shows the estimated impact of FY 1990 NASA

procurement on the demand for specific occupations, ranked by the

percent impact on total jobs within the specific occupation.

This table shows how important NASA procurement spending is in

influencing the private sector labor market for Engineers, Scientists,

Computer Specialists, Technicians, and skilled workers in many

occupations. In fact, with possibly one or two exceptions, all of the

occupations impacted the most heavily are within the above mentioned

categories. Broadly speaking, the influence of NASA spending on the

jobs is these occupations will be 20 or 30 times higher than its

27
Table V.10

Jobs Created by Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures

Within Selected Occupations, Ranked by Relative Job Impact

Ranka

Jobs

Created

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Aerospace Engineers

Mechanical Engineering Technicians

Electronic Repairers, Communications Equipment

Inspectors and Testors

Aircraft Engine Mechanics

Electrical Engineers

Mathematicians

Electrical Equipment Asseblers

Solderers and Brazers

Metallurgical Engineers

Industrial Engineers

Operations and Systems Researchers

Electrical Technicians

Mechanical Engineers

Grinding and Polishing Machine Operators

Metal Plating Machine Operators

Tool and Die Makers

Misc. Engineering Technicians

Computer Programmers

Marine Engineers

Purchasing Agents and Buyers

Technical Writers

Chemical Engineers

Computer Systems Analysts

Misc. Engineers

Misc. Science Technicians

Drafting Occupations

Civil Engineers

Mining Engineers

Chemists, except Biochemists

3,441

577

915

1,556

881

5,304

123

2,047

395

344

2,288

1,359

2,404

2,413

1,266

394

1,272

1,653

2,736

98

1,472

329

476

i, 620

986

344

1 , 174

897

52

412

aRanked on the basis of the percent job impact on the occupation.

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989

28
overall impact on the economy. While it has frequently been stated how

important the Space Program is in creating demand for these

occupations, Table V.10 clearly illustrates this.

This table also contains some unexpected findings. While it is

not surprising to see that NASA programs create demand in private

industry for Aerospace Engineers, Aircraft Engine Mechanics, and

Computer Programmers, it is important to note that NASA spending is

also important in the job market for Inspectors and Testors,

Assemblers, Solderes, Machine Operators, and Tool and Diemakers.

A point again worth noting is that these data exclude all NASA

employees. Since these employees are overwhelmingly concentrated in

the Science and Engineering specialties, if they were included the

impact on Scientists and Engineers would be even more pronounced. Thus

the data in Table V.10 actually give a somewhat conservative estimate

of the the impact of NASA programs on the employment requirements for

many types of scientists and engineers. However, this is not true for

the manufacturing-related occupations in this table, since these are

concentrated in private industry.

Footnotes

I. The jobs created for 475 all-inclusive occupations are given in the

appendix.

29
VI. THE BENEFITS TO EACH STATE

One of the more important questions about the economic effects of

the Space Program that must be resolved is how these benefits are

distributed among the states. Obviously, the states of Florida,

Alabama, and Texas contain major NASA facilities and benefit

substantially from Agency programs, as does California, due to the

concentration of the aerospace industry in the southern part of the

state. But how are the indirect economic benefits of the NASA programs

distributed among the states? Does the U.S. Space program have

significant effects on most states or are the benefits concentrated in

only a relatively few? These types of questions have not heretofore

been adequately answered, and they are the focus of this chapter.

The estimated FY 1990 NASA procurement awards classified by type

of contractor and by state are given in Table VI.l, the percent

distribution of these is shown in Table VI.2, and the ranks among the

states of the prime contract awards are illustrated in Figure VI.I.

The data in these exhibits appear to indicate that the economic

benefits of the Space Program are heavily concentrated in four or five

states and that the other 45 or so gain little from NASA procurement

spending. Figure VI.l indicates that five states -- California, Texas,

Florida, Maryland, and Alabama -- receive 68 percent of the NASA

procurement spending, and that the remainder is distributed in

relatively insignificant amounts to all the other states. This is the

conventional wisdom: the economic benefits of expenditures for the

U.S. Space Program flow primarily to only a few regions of the nation

and most states gain little from this spending.

However, this impression is wrong. As we demonstrate below, the

economic benefits of the Space Program are widely distributed

throughout the nation, and among of the biggest state "winners" are

many that few analysts perceive as being closely tied to the Program.

Table VI.3 shows the total (direct plus indirect) economic and

employment benefits of the proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement budget to

every state. This table demonstrates that in terms of industry sales

and jobs every state benefits substantially from the U.S. Space

Program. These data are important, for they refute the widespread

notion that the NASA budget benefits four or five states at the expense

of the rest of the nation.

However, even these data are aggregate and in one sense obscure

relevant information, and to further assess the state-specific benefits

and their distributions we have developed several rankings of the

states.

Table VI.4 ranks the top 20 states on the basis of the total sales

generated by the Space Program. Table VI.5 ranks the top 20 states on

the basis of the per capita employment created by the Space Program.

Table VI.6 ranks the top 20 states on the basis of the economic

benefits created indirectly within each state by the Space Program.

3O
0U

c-O

L)

tu0

I:b

>1

>_

..Q

t_

'Ig

I..i

4.J

r_

4.-) -_ U0

n. <

.<o

o',

>.4

"tD

,-_ E:0o

_J.J o °..4

..-.4

4-_oo

_Z

U

...4

oU

nn._

_n n.0

E'_

°°°°°°°°°°°°o°°O°°°*'_°*'°°°°°

.°°_.**oo,_°°°°

°°.°°o°° 0o_

.°.°.°°

n_000

°°..,°o.,°.°°._°° o*o_*e°_°*_*°

°.._.°°,°*°

°°...°_°o°.°°'*°_°_

4Ji

o_
Estimated FY

Table VI.l (continued)

1990 NASA Procurement Awards by Type

and by State

of Contractor

Business Business Education Federal

Total Prime Subcontract Nonprofit Government

State ...... (millions of dollars)

New Jersey 256.7 132.3 111.4 4.2 8.8

New Mexico 83.4 42.8 17.9 9.0 13.7

New York 154.3 44.0 74.0 22.6 13.7

North Carolina 40.6 0.7 2.7 6.8 30.4

North Dakota 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.I 3.8

Ohio 245.4 163.3 24.7 23.7 33.7

Oklahoma 16.5 0.0 i.i 4.1 11.3

Oregon 9.7 2.0 4.4 1.6 1.7

Pennsylvania 152.2 107.7 22.8 11.8 9.9

Rhode Island 8.4 0.7 2.4 2.4 2.9

South Carolina 22.7 0.2 0.2 0.8 21.3

South Dakota 5.3 0.I 2.3 0.5 2.5

Tennessee 40.7 20.0 6.3 6.2 8.1

Texas 1,173.9 851.5 184.3 59.6 78.5

Utah 561.1 551.6 4.2 2.1 3.2

Vermont 2.6 0.5 1.7 0.I 0.4

Virginia 486.9 325.2 65.7 26.2 69.8

Washington 40.0 12.1 2.9 6.1 19.0

West Virginia 1.2 0.i 0.I 0.2 0.7

Wisconsin 36.8 19.3 2.3 12.0 3.2

Wyoming 1.8 0.0 0.i 0.2 1.4

Total 11,300.0 7,297.6 2,110.2 1,017.4 874.8

Source: Historical NASA Procurement and Budget documents; and MISI; 1989.

32
r_

6,

o

00

0

_.,-4

.C_ .,.-4

_ZJEU0

(_ 4-J

_,.C2

'0

0 _"

rd

QJ

J.)

fT.]

E0

0 .,-I

._J0

U

_30

r_Z

_J0U

m_

_3

b]

tO

rO

_J0

A

rO

4J0

O30

4J

_J

J.JII

_01

°..°o.°°°°°°**°°°°°°

°°°°.°°°°°

.°°°°o°.°o°°.°*o oo_°*°_

°°°°°.

...e._...- o_

03

03
Table VI.2 (continued)

Estimated FY 1990 NASA Procurement Awards by Type of Contractor

and by State (Percent Distribution)

State

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Total

2 3

0 7

1 4

0 4

0 0

2 2

0.i

0.I

1.3

0.I

0.2

0.0

0.4

10.4

5.0

0.0

4.3

0.4

0.0

0.3

0.0

Business Business Education Federal

Prime Subcontract Nonprofit Government

(percent of US total)

1.8 5.3

0.6 0.8

0.6 3.5

0.0 0.I

0.0 O.0

2.2 1.2

0 0 0.1

00 0.2

15 1 1

00 01

00 00

00 01

0.3 03

11.7 8 7

7.6 02

0.0 01

4.5 31

0.2 0 1

0.0 0.0

0.3 0.i

0.0 0.0

0.4 1.0

0.9 1.6

2.2 i .6

0.7 3.5

0.0 04

2.3 39

0.4 13

0.2 02

1.2 11

0.2 O3

0.I 24

0.0 0 3

0.6 09

5.9 90

0.2 0.4

0.0 0.0

2.6 8.0

0.6 2.2

0.0 0.1

1.2 0.4

0.0 0.2

Total I00 I00 i00 i00 I00

Source: Management Information Services, Inc.; 1989.

34
co

£,q

r

@

U

i.

@

n

34

32

3o

28

NASA

Figure VI.l

Prime Contract Awards,

(by State as a percent of U.S. total)

FY

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

10 10

7

6

5

4

3

Calif Florida Texas Marylnd Alabama Utah Virgnia Louisna

State

Source: Management Information Services, Inc. ; 1989.

2

N.J.

1990

2

Ohio

17

Other
Estimated

Table VI.3

Sales and Jobs Created in Each State by Proposed

FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures

State

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

Sales Employment

(millions) (% of US) (number) (% of US)

......................................

$858 2

35 5

229 6

89 0

6,766 6

490 3

601.1

32.7

75.2

1,297.5

299.7

23.0

21.4

549.2

348.3

94.7

172.0

142.4

535.0

36.0

994.3

382.3

518.9

164.3

231.9

342.3

18.7

47.7

30.2

58.7

3.7

0 2

1 0

0 4

29 2

2 1

2 6

0.i

0.3

5.6

1.3

0.i

0.i

2.4

1.5

0.4

0.7

0.6

2.3

0.2

4.3

1.7

2.2

0.7

1.0

1.5

0.i

0.2

0.i

0.3

8,582 3.6

236 0.I

2,424 1.0

876 0.4

70,332 29.7

5,381 2.3

6,224 2.6

291 0.I

990 0.4

14,756 6.2

3,224 1.4

278 0.I

242 0.i

5,657 2.4

3,253 1.4

1,050 0.4

1,697 0.7

1,358 0.6

4,583 1.9

386 0.2

11,122 4.7

4,208 1.8

4,582 1.9

1,791 0.8

2,146 0.9

3,427 1.4

180 0.i

566 0.2

379 0.2

626 0.3

36
Table VI.3 (continued)

Estimated Sales and Jobs Created in Each State by Proposed

FY 1990 NASAProcurement Expenditures

State

Sales

(millions) (% of US)

NewJersey 506.0 2.2

NewMexLco 135.5 0.6

NewYork 711.1 3.1

North Carolina 231.3 1.0

North Dakota 18.0 0.I

Ohio 928.7 4.0

Oklahoma 158.7 0.7

Oregon 67.3 0.3

Pennsylvania 602.2 2.6

RhodeIsland 32.3 0.I

South Carolina 109.5 0.5

South Dakota 18.3 0.I

Tennessee 209.1 0.9

Texas 2,105.4 9.1

Utah 590.8 2.6

Vermont 21.1 0.i

Virginia 631.2 2.7

Washington 308.4 1.3

West Virginia 61.0 0.3

Wisconsin 193.0 0.8

Wyoming 28.0 0.i

Employment

(number) (%of US)

5,411 2.3

1,242 0.5

7,820 3.3

2,450 1.0

183 0.i

8,545 3.6

1,358 0.6

731 0.3

5,955 2.5

347 0.i

1,139 0.5

221 0 1

2,237 0 9

19,528 8 3

5,895 2 5

226 0 1

6,666 2 8

3,173 1 3

502 0 2

1,991 0.8

210 0.I

Total $23,153.2 - 236,679 -

Source: ManagementInformation Services, Inc.; 1989.

37
Table VI.4

Ranking of the Top 20 States on the Basis of Total Industry

Sales Generated by Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures

Rank

i. California

2. Texas

3. Florida

4. Maryland

5. Ohio

6. Alabama

7. New York

8. Virginia

9. Pennsylvania

i0. Connecticut

ii. Utah

12. Illinois

13. Louisiana

14. Michigan

15. New Jersey

16. Colorado

17. Massachusetts

18. Indiana

19. Missouri

20. Washington

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989

38
Table VI.5

Ranking of the Top 20 States on the Basis of Jobs Created

Per Capita by Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures

Rank

I. Utah

2. California

3. Maryland

4. Alabama

5. Connecticut

6. Colorado

7. Florida

8. Texas

9. Virginia

I0. Louisiana

ii. Ohio

12. Mississippi

13. New Mexico

14. New Jersey

15. Washington

16. Kansas

17. Missouri

18. Arizona

19. Indiana

20. New Hampshire

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989

39
Table VI. 6

Ranking of the Top 20 States on the Basis of

Industry Sales Generated Indirectly in the State

by Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures

Rank

i. California

2. Texas

3. Ohio

4. New York

5. Illinois

6. Michigan

7. Connecticut

8. Pennsylvania

9. Indiana

i0. Missouri

ii. Colorado

12. Washington

13. New Jersey

14. Georgia

15. Massachusetts

16. Alabama

17. North Carolina

18. Louisiana

19. Maryland

20. Tennessee

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989

4O
Focussing first on VI.4, it is observed that in terms of total

sales generated the prime contract award states of California, Texas,

Florida, Maryland, and Alabama still clearly dominate. This is to be

expected, since the total economic benefits are the sum of the direct

benefits and the indirect benefits. What is interesting in this table,

however, is that we are beginning to see states emerging as "winners"

that get little direct NASA procurement funding. These states include

New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Colorado, and

Indiana.

Table VI.5 ranks the states on the basis of the employment created

(directly and indirectly) by proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement,

normalized by each state's forecast 1990 population. This is an

important evaluation criterion, for it indicates how relatively

important the jobs created (listed in Table VI.3) are in relation to

the number of workers in the state. Obviously, a given number of jobs

created in a small state such as Wyoming or Hew Hampshire are much more

significant to the state than the same number of jobs created in a

large state such as California, Texas, or New York. Again we observe

states beginning to emerge as clear winners that few would normally

associate closely with the Space Program. These include Colorado,

Indiana, Arizona, New Jersey, Connecticut, Washington, Kansas,

Missouri, and New Hampshire.

Tables VI.3 through VI.5 are based on the total impacts of NASA

spending and, as noted, are dominated by the five states receiving the

large prime contract awards. Table VI.6 ranks the top 20 states on the

basis of the indirect benefits received from proposed FY 1990 NASA

procurement -- the economic activity generated within a state by the

indirect effects of NASA procurement in all the other states. This

table can shows there are substantial benefits to those states that do

not receive large prime contract awards from NASA.

Once again, California and Texas dominate the ranking of winners

in this table, but abstracting from this, the results are rather

interesting. First of all, several of the major prime contract award

states, such as Florida and Utah -- the latter of which receives the

highest per capita benefits -- no long even appear among the top 20

ranked states. Thus, while these two states benefit substantially from

the direct procurement awards, they receive relatively little indirect

economic stimulus from NASA-induced business in other states.

Second, other major prime contract award states, such as Alabama,

Louisiana, and Virginia, are now ranked much lower. Again, these

states do not contain the types of industries that benefit from the

indirect economic stimulus of the NASA expenditures.

Third, Ohio, which ranks tenth in terms of prime contract awards,

now ranks third on the basis of its industrial infrastructure.

Finally, and most interesting, we find a new set of states

identified as major (indirect) beneficiaries of the U.S. Space

Program. These include the major manufacturing states of New York,

Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, and

41
Wisconsin. These states represent the manufacturing heartland of the

U.S. and benefit substantially by producing the products required by

the prime contractors and the subcontractors to NASA. Other states

noteworthy in Table VI.6 include Georgia, Massachusetts, North

Carolina, and Tennessee.

To illustrate the importance of the indirect impact of NASA

procurement on different states we derived the economic multipliers

illustrated in Table VI.7. These are computed by deriving the total

(direct plus indirect) sales generated in the state by proposed FY 1990

NASA procurement by the direct procurement expenditures in the state.

The higher the multiplier, the greater the importance of NASA

procurement in generating indirect economic benefits in the state.

More significant perhaps, the higher the multiplier, the greater the

importance of the "hidden" indirect benefits of NASA spending to the

state. Thus:

o For every dollar Michigan will likely receive directly in

proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement funds, it will receive $14

indirectly in procurement-induced business.

o For every dollar Illinois will likely receive directly in

proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement funds, it will receive $I0

indirectly in procurement-induced business.

o For every dollar North Carolina will likely receive directly in

proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement funds, it will receive $6

indirectly in procurement-induced business.

o For every dollar New York will likely receive directly in

proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement funds, it will receive $5

indirectly in procurement-induced business.

None of the above four states -- Michigan, Illinois, North

Carolina, New York -- are traditionally considered to be closely linked

to NASA spending, yet each stands to gain considerably from the

proposed FY 1990 NASA procurement expenditures.

Figure VI.2 illustrates the pervasiveness of the indirect benefits

to the states of NASA procurement spending. States are grouped

according to the size of their indirect multipliers:

o Six states have multipliers greater than i0 -- Arkansas (5),

Indiana (12), Kentucky (i0), Michigan (14), Oklahoma (9), and

Washington (77)

o Five states have multipliers between 7 and 9 -- Illinois (9),

Iowa (8), Missouri (8), Nebraska (7), and Oregon (7)

o Twelve states have multipliers between 4 and 6 -- Connecticut

(4), Georgia (6), Kansas (4), Minnesota (5), Nevada (4), New

York (5), North Carolina (6), Ohio (4), Pennsylvania (4), Rhode

Island (4), South Carolina (5), Tennessee (5), and Wisconsin

(5)

42
Table VI.7

Economic Multipliers for Selected States Resulting From

Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures

Multiplier a

Michigan

Indiana

Illinois

Missouri

Oregon

North Carolina

Georgia

Wisconsin

Tennessee

New York

Pennsylvania

Kansas

Ohio

Massachusetts

Mississippi

Arizona

New Jersey

Texas

California

Alabama

Florida

14.0 to 1

12.0 to 1

9.8 to 1

8.3 to 1

6.7 to 1

5.6 to 1

5.5 to 1

5.2 to 1

5.1 to 1

4.6 to 1

4.0 to 1

3.8 to 1

3.8 to 1

2.7 to 1

2.1 to 1

2.0 to 1

2.0 to 1

1.8 to 1

1.8 to 1

1.4 to 1

I.i to 1

aRatio of total (direct plus indirect) economic benefits to direct

economic benefits.

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989.

43
Figure Vl. 2

NASA Indirect Economic Benefits by State

Fiscal Year 1990

Source: Management Information Services, Inc.; 1989.

10 or over

m 7to9

_J 4to6

[--] under 4
o All of the other states have multipliers less than 4

These findings are significant. Observing only the direct NASA

procurement spending in a state can give a misleading picture of the

importance of NASA procurement to the economic well being of that

state, and the indirect economic benefits identified here must also be

considered. To give only one example, focusing exclusively on the

direct procurement expenditures in Indiana would indicate that the

state will receive only $29 million out of the entire proposed FY 1990

NASA procurement budget. However, in reality, when the indirect

effects of the procurement spending are taken into account Indiana

emerges as a major "winner" from the program, and is likely to benefit

from $350 million in increased 1990 gross state product due to NASA

procurement.

The above analysis allows us to categorize the states which are

directly or indirectly (or both) the major benefactors of the U.S.

Space Program. These are shown in Table VI.8. Category A contains

those states which will receive the major FY 1990 NASA prime contract

awards and which have been traditionally assumed to be tied closely to

the Space Program. Category B identifies those states that will likely

benefit significantly on a per capita basis and/or indirectly from NASA

procurement and which have not traditionally been tied closely to the

Space Program or to the NASA budget. This grouping is illustrated in

Figure VI.3.

We thus find that while high prime contract award states such as

California, Texas, and Florida benefit greatly from NASA procurement

spending, so also do states such as Illinois, which will receive only a

relatively small portion of the FY 1990 NASA direct procurement

budget. In 1990, NASA procurement spending will create (directly and

indirectly) $550 million in industry sales and 5,700 jobs in Illinois.

Further, as noted, in this state for every direct dollar of NASA

spending, an additional I0 dollars of spending are generated indirectly

by the NASA procurement budget.

This at first glance may seem counterintuative, since Illinois is

not generally considered to be a state that benefits greatly from the

Space Program. However, Illinois does benefit substantially from NASA

spending. Its industries produce the goods and services required

indirectly by the recipients of NASA procurement awards: capital

goods, electronic components, scientific instruments, chemical

products, primary and fabricated metals products, specialized business

services, etc. Further, because of the widely based, indirect nature

of these economic benefits to the state, Illinois will benefit greatly

from NASA procurement spending in other states on a wide variety of

programs, and its benefits are not tied to a specific contract,

project, or program.

45
Table VI.8

Categorization of the States Benefiting Most From

Proposed FY 1990 NASA Procurement Expenditures

Category A

Major Prime Contract Award States

California Alabama

Texas Louisiana

Florida Utah

Maryland Virginia

Category B

States Benefiting Indirectly From the U.S. Space Program

Colorado

New Jersey

New York

Arizona

Mississippi

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Tennessee

Washington

Massachusetts

Missouri

Wisconsin

New Hampshire

New Mexico

Georgia

Connecticut

North Carolina

Minnesota

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 1989

46
Figure VI.3

States Benefiting Most from U.S. Space Program

Fiscal Year 1990

Category

of Benefits

II Major Prime Contnac:

Higher Indirect

[] Lower Indirect

Source: Management Information Services, Inc.; 1989.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Aerospace." U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1988, pp. 39-1 - 39-10, _.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1988.

Amendola, Marie. "Main Rapporteur's Report." Proceedings of the

International Colloquium on Economic Effects of Space and Other

Advanced Technologies, Strasbourg, April 1980, pp. 239-247.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Program: An Investment in America. New York: 1988.

Civil Space

Barfield, Claude. "The Final, Far-Out Things."

Executive, Vol. 20, No. i0 (October 1988), pp. 20-22.

Government

Business-Higher Education Forum. Space:

Frontier. Washington, D.C., 1986.

America's New Competitive

Comptroller General of the United States. NASA Report May Overstate

the Economic Benefits of Research and Development Spending.

Washington, D.C., October 18, 1977.

Covault, Craig. "Science Board Proposes New

Direction." Aviation Week and Space Technology.

pp. 36-37.

Space Program

August i, 1988,

Denver Research Institute. Space Benefits: The Secondary

Application of Aerospace Technology in Other Sectors of the Economy.

Denver, Colorado, 1976.

Fletcher, James C. Excerpts From Remarks Prepared for Delivery:

The Forum Club of Houston, February 19, 1988, Houston, Texas.

Fletcher, James C. Excerpts From Remarks Prepared for Delivery:

New Orleans Chamber of Commerce, March ii, 1988, New Orleans,

Louisiana.

Foley, Theresa M. "Congress Passes Space Council, Launch Insurance

Legislation." Aviation Week and Space Technology, Volume 129, No.

18 (October 31, 1988,), p. 21.

Foley, Theresa M. "Proposals in Congress Would Kill Space Station

Unless Next President Intercedes." Aviation Week and Space

Technology, Volume 128, No. 25 (June 20, 1988), pp. 22-23.

"Government Payloads Dominate Commercial Launch Manifest." Aviation

Week and Space Technology, Volume 129, No. 1 (July 4, 1988), p. 24.

Heiss, K. P. "The Economics of the Space Program." International

Academy of Astronautics, International Astronautical Congress, 1968

Proceedings. pp. 461-470.

48
Humphlett, Patricia E. Civilian Space Policy Under the Reagan

Administration: Potential Impact of the January 1988 Directive.

U.S. Congressional Research Service Report 88-237 SPR, Washington,

D.C., March 21, 1988.

"Industry Structure." Space Business. August 1988, pp. 1-5.

Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 1987 Annual Report. California Institute

of Technology, Pasadena, California, 1989.

Kandebo, Stanley W., Edward H. Phillips, and Nicholas C. Kernstock.

"U.S. Faces Potential Shortage of Engineers." Aviation Week and Space

Technology, Volume 128, No. 22 (December 5, 1988), pp. 36-54.

Keaton, Paul W. "Why Billions Can and Should be Spent on Space."

Astronautics and Aeronautics. Vol. 21, May 1983, pp. 86-92.

Kelly, David L., Robert P. Zimmer, and R. David Wilkins. "Cost

Benefit Assessment of NASA Remote Sensing Technology Transferred to

the State of Georgia." Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia

Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, ' 1978.

Lesher, R. L. The Economic Impact of the U.S. Space Program on the

U.S. Economy. National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Washington, D.C., 1970.

Macaley, Molley K., ed. Economics and Technology in U.S. Space

Policy. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, pp. 173-199.

Management Information Services, Inc. Economic and Employment

Benefits of Investments in Environmental Protection. Washington,

D.C., 1986.

Management Information Services, Inc. The Net Cost and Benefits to

Each State and to the Nation of Acid Rain Abatement Legislation.

Washington, D.C., 1987.

Management Information Services, Inc. and Management Analysis Company.

Economic Growth and the Requirements for Electric Power During the

1990s in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Washington, D.C., 1989.

Management Information SErvices, Inc. The Economic and Employment

Benefits to the Nation and to Each State of the U.S. Space Program.

Report Prepared for the NASA Alumni League, Washington, D.C., 1989.

Matlack, Carol. "The Space Program's Mid-Life Crisis."

Executive, Vol. 20, No. i0 (October 1988), pp. 10-16.

Government

Midwest Research Institute. Economic Impact of Stimulated

Technological Activity. Report prepared for the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, 1971.

49
Midwest Research Institute. Economic Impact and Technological

Progress of NASA Research and Development Expenditures. Report

prepared for the National Academy of Public Administration, 1988.

Miernyk, William H. Impact of the Space Program on a Local Economy.

Parsons, West Virginia: McClain, 1967.

National Academy of Sciences. Space Science in the 21st Century:

Imperatives for Decades 1995-2015. Washington, D.C. 1988.

National Academy of Sciences. Toward a New

Recommendations for President-Elect George Bush.

1988.

Era in Space:

Washington, D.C.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Annual Procurement

Report, Fiscal Year 1987. Washington, D.C., 1988.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Annual Procurement

Report, Fiscal Year 1988. Washington, D.C., 1989.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The High Speed

Frontier: Case Histories of Four NACA Programs. Washington, D.C.,

1980.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Commercial

Programs: A Progress Report. Washington, D.C., 1988.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Subcontracts

Awarded by NASA Prime Contractors and Their First Tier Subcontractors

($i0,000 and Over), Fiscal Year 1987. Washington, D.C., 1988.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Spinoffs. Washington,

D.C., 1988.

National Commission on Space. Pioneering the Space Frontier. New

York: Bantam Books, 1986.

NASA Advisory Council. Planetary Exploration Through the Year 2000:

An Augmented Program. 1988.

Pederson, Kenneth S. "Changes and Challenges." in Molly K. Macaley,

ed., Economics and Technology in U.S. Space Policy. Washington, D.C.:

Resources for the Future, pp. 173-199.

Ride, Sally K. Leadership and America's Future in Space. Washington,

D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, August 1987.

Rockwell International Corporation. Impact of Space Research and

Development on Economic Growth and Productivity. Canoga Park,

California, 1974.

Rockwell International Corporation. The Long Term Economic Impact

of Space Research and Development Technology. Canoga Park,

California, 1974.

5O
Sawyer, Kathy. "There's Little Room for Space Left in the Budget."

Washinqton Post, December 13, 1988, p. AI.

Sawyer, Kathy. "Tight Budget Pinching Space Probe." Washinqton Post,

November 24, 1988, p. A21.

"The Space Industrialization Act of 1979." H.R. 2337.

"Space Station Realities." Aviation Week and Space Technoloqy, Volume

129, No. 1 (August 8, 1988), p. 7.

"Space Commercialization." U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1988, pp. 50-1 -

50-2, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1988.

Stanford Research Institute. Some Major Impacts of the National Space

Proqram: Identification of New Occupations. Report prepared for the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1968.

Tucker, Elizabeth. "Area Firms Seek Space Station Work."

Washinqton Post. November 7, 1988, pp. A5-A6.

The

U.S. Congressional Budget office. Using Federal R & D to Promote

Commercial Innovation. Washington, D.C., 1988.

U.S. General Accounting Office.

1987.

Space Fundinq. Washington, D.C.,

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. Civilian Space Policy and

Applications. Washington, D.C., 1982.

U.S. Congressional Budget Office.

Beyond. Washington, D.C., 1988.

The NASA Proqram in the 1990s and

U.S. Congressional Budget Office.

Shuttle. Washington, D.C., 1985.

Pricinq Options for the Space

U.S. Department of Defense, Directorate for Information. Projected

Defense Purchases: Detail by Industry and State. Washington, D.C.,

1986.

U.S. Department of Defense. Projection of Defense Purchases Detailed

by Industry and State. DIOR 008-0000-00459-5, Washington, D.C., 1987.

The White House, office of the Press Secretary.

Policy." Fact Sheet, February ii, 1988.

"National Space

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. "The President's

Space Policy and Commercial Space Initiative to Begin the Next

Century." Fact Sheet, February ii, 1988.

Yardley, John. "U.S. Must Develop a Solid Base for Future Space

Exploration." Aviation Week and Space Technoloqy. November 28, 1988,

pp. 105-106.

51
Appendix

Detailed Occupational Jobs Created by Proposed

FY 1990 NASAProcurement Expenditures

Occupatic,nal Title Job_

Legislat :,rs

F'ublic administratic, n, chief executives

F'ublic administratic, n, officials

Administrators, protective services

Fi nanci al managers

Personnel & labor relations

Purchasing managers

Manaqers, marketing, advertising

Administrators, education

Managers, medicine & health

Managers, properties & real estate

Post mast er s

Funeral directors

Managers & administrators, n.e.c.

Accountants & auditc, rs

Underwriters

Other financial officers

Management analysts

Personnel & training specialists

Purchasing agents, farm products

Buyers, wholesale & retail trade

Purchasing agents & buyers, n.e.c.

Business & promotion agents

Construction inspectors

Inspectors, except construction

Management related, n.e.c.

Architects

Aerospace engineers

Metallurgical engineers

Mining engineers

Petroleum engineers

Chemical engineers

Nuclear engineers

Civil engineers

Agricultural engineers

Electrical engineers

Industrial engineers

Mechanical engineers

Marine engineers

Engineers, n.e.c.

Surveyors & mapping

Cc,mputer systems analysts

Operations & systems researchers

Act uar ies

Statisticians

Mathematical scientists, n.e.c.

Physicists & astronc, mers

Chemists, except bit,chemists

Atmospheri,: .and space scientists

Geologists & geodeis_

2

7

159

16

683

494

1,251

I, 175

473

14

388

57

64

14,107

2,604

".'.:'4

l, 069

355

686

18

>':_'50

1,472

56

69

139

802

181

3,441

344

52

155

476

50

897

3

5,304

2,288

2,413

98

986

46

1,620

1,359

18

40

123

27

412

256
Appendix

Physical scientists, n.e.c.

Agricultural scientists

Biological & life scientists

Forestry & ,:onservatic,n s,:ientists

Medical scientists

F'hysici ans

Dentists

Veterinarians

Optometrists

Podiatrists

Health diagnosing, n.e.c.

Registered nurses

Pharmaci sts

Dietitian

Inhal at i,:,n therapists

Occupati,:,nal therapists

Physical therapists

Speechtherapists

Therapists, n.e.c.

F'hysicians' assistants

Earth, environmental science teachers

Biological science tea,:hers

Chemistry teachers

Physics teachers

Psy,-hology teachers

Ec,:,nc, mics tea,:hers

History teachers

Politi,:al science teachers

Sociology teachers

Sc,cial science teachers, n.e.c.

Engineering teachers

Mathematical s,:ience teachers

Computerscience teachers

Medical science teachers

Health specialties teachers

Business teachers

Agriculture teachers

Art & music teachers

Physical education teachers

Education teachers

English teachers

Foreign language teachers

Law teachers

Social wc,rk teachers

Theology teachers

Trade & industrial teachers

Homeeconomics teachers

Pc,stsecondary, subject nc,t specified

Teachers, prekindergarten & kindergarten

Teachers, elementary school

Teachers, secondary school

Teachers, special educatic,n

Teachers, n.e.c.

Cc,unselors, educational

Librarians

Archivists & curators

Economists

Psychologists 53

20

i 2

27

47

5

91

19

44

19

i

4

367

139

25

II

15

7

68

14

28

I

5

4

2

3

3

3

2

0

i

5

7

i0

5

7

6

0

5

2

3

5

3

1

I

I

2

0

L9

oo6

2,784

2,429

II

56O

170

171

16

316

103
Appendix

Sc.-_i c,log i s t s

Sc,,-ial scientists, n.e.c.

Urban planners

Social wc,rkers

Recreati,-,n workers

I-:1er gy

Retigic, us workers, n.e.c.

Lawyer s

J u d g e s

ALtt h or S

Technical writers

Dpsi.qner _.

Musicians & composers

Actors & directc, rs

Painters & artists

F'hotc,grapher s

Dan,:es

Artists, n.e.c.

Editors & reporters

PLlblic relations specialists

Annc,unc er s

Athletes

Clini,:al laboratory technicians

Dental hygienists

Health recc,rd technicians

RadJolc, gic technicians

Licensed practical nurses

Flealth technicians, n.e.c.

Electrical te,zhnicians

Industrial engineering technicians

Mechanic.at engineering te,:hnicians

Engineering technicians, n.e.c.

Drafting __,-cupat i c,ns

Surveying & mapping technicians

Biological technicians

Chemical technicians

Science techni,-ians, n.e.c.

Airplane pilc,ts & navigators

Air traffic contrc, llers

Broadcast equ.ipment operators

Computer pr,_-,grammer s

Tc,ol programmers

Legal assistants

Terhnicians, n.e.c.

Supervisors & prc,prietc, rs, sales

Insurance sales c,ccupations

Real estate sales c,ccupatic, ns

(_._e.urlties F" sales ,:,cupations

Advert isi ng sales c,,:: cupat i,_-,ns

Sales occupatic, ns, other

Sales engineers

Sales representatives

Sales workers

Sales workers

Sales wc,rker s

Sales workers

Sales workers

Sales workers

motc,r vehicles

apparel

shoes

furniture

ratio, TV

hardware

54

t

12

7

1'.)5

8

55

15

1,099

11

134

32'9

1,029

171

83

324

203

t 0

61

402

319

57

31

4{3

13

'7

16

107

140

2,404

It

577

1,653

I, 174

184

43

269

344

227

8

43

2,736

8

15'7

1,132

3,716

417

596

160

224

999

167

3,000

245

536

130

162

160

192
Appendi x

Sales workers, parts

Sales wc,rkers, other commc, dities

Sales counter clerks

Cashi ers

Street sales workers

N_'AS v&_ndor s

Demc,nstrators, sales

Auctioneers

Sales support ,i_ccupat icns, n.e.c.

Supervisc, rs, general office

Supervisc, rs, computer equipment

'.3upervisc,rs, finar_,:ial re,:,:,rds

F-:hief communi,zations c,perators

Supervisors; distributi,:,n ;_..: s,:heduling

Computer oper atc,rs

Peripheral equipment :perators

Secret ar ies

St enogr apher s

Typists

Inverviewers

Hotel clerks

Tr anspc,rtat i,:,nagents

Rec ept i.oni sts

Informatic, n clerks, n.e.,:.

Classified-ad clerks

C,:,rrespondence clerks

Order ,:lerks

F'ers,:,nnel ,::lerks

Library clerks

File ,-leks

Recc, rds clerks

Boc, k ke ep e r s, ac c c,un t i n g c 1e r k s

Payroll clerks

Billing ,:lerks

Cost & rate clerks

Billing & calculating machine c,perat,:,rs

Duplicating ma,zhine operators

Mail preparing ma,:hine operators

Office machine operators, n.e.c.

Tel ephc,ne ,:,peratcrs

Telegraphers

Cc,mmunications equip, operat,:,rs, n.e.c.

Postal clerks

Mail carriers

Mail clerks, exc. postal service

Messenger s

Dispatchers

Pr oduc tion :,oord inat os

Shipping & receiving ,:lerks

Stock & inventory clerks

Meter readers

Weighers & ,:heckers

Expediters

Material recording ,:lerks, n.e.,:.

Insuran,ze investigators

Investigators, exc. insuran,:e

Eligibility clerks, welfare

Bill & ac,:ount ':lerk_55

185

1,701

192

2, 44'2

477

502

62

It

4.4

415

") ":,0

173

18

676

2,555

:26

Zoo

308

1,764

182

120

382

650

360

i0

37

322

146

9'9

432

147

3,424

683

315

139

100

151

21

."_:5 6

321

15

0 "0

•J ,._

663

686

265

:302

.-, _7

1, :2,(:)'7

1,284

2,156

95

299

562

207

153

517

13

17:2
Appendix

General c,ffice clerks

Bank tellers

F'r ,-.:, freader s

Data-entry keyers

Statistical clerks

Teachers aides

Administrative support, n.e.,::.

Supervisc, rs, firefighting

Supervisors, pol ice

Supervisors, guards

Fire inspection

F irefighting occupations

Police & detectives

Sheriffs & bailiffs

Rc,rrectic, nal institution c,fficers

Crc,ssing guards

Guards & police, _.x,:.public service

Prote,-tive service 3,:,-upations, n.e.,-.

Supervisors, foc,d preparati,-,n

Bartenders

Waiters & waitresses

Cooks, except short order

Short-order cooks

Food ,-c,unter occupations

Kitchen workers

Waiters'/waitresses' assistants

Mis,-ellaneous fc-:,dpreparatic, n

Dental assistants

Health aides, ex,_-ept nursing

Nursing aides

Supervis,_-,rs, ,:leaning w,:,rkers

Maids & housemen

Janitors & cleaners

Elevator operators

Pest cc,ntrol ,-,,-,-upatic,ns

Supervisors, personal services

Barbers

Hairdressers & cosmetologists

Attendants, amusement fa,:ilities

Guides

Usher s

Transpor tatinn attendants

Baggage porters

Welfare service aides

Rhild ,_-are workers

Persc,nal servi,-e c,,-cupations, n.e.c.

Farmers, except h,:,rticultural

Hc,rticultural specialty farmers

Managers, farms, ex,-ept horti,:ultural

Managers, horti,:-ultural specialty farms

Supervisc, rs, farm workers

F'arm wor kers

Marine life ,:ultivation w,:,rkers

Nursery workers

Supervisc, rs, related.agricultural

GrolJndskeepers & gardeners

Animal :aretakers

Graders & sc,rters

56

36

416

54-2

13

•22

146

20

71

:1.2'9

3C

4:3

14

1,280

2'9

:237

417

1,811

1,658

iJo

442

184

500

768

19

78

,z:. _,.,.D

155

417

3,458

13

OrD

,.a,J

18

160

983

141

31

10

224

42

16

554

1 L-i_z" _J_J

1,316

'9

64

12

.J_J

I, 143

0

137

374

103

_l --,
Appendix

Supervisors, forestry & logging workers

Forestry workers, except logging

Timber cutting 8,.logging occupations

Captains & ,z,fficers, fishing vessels

Fishers

Hunters & trappers

Supervisc, rs, mechanics & repairers

Au tc,mob iIe mec han ics

Automobile mechanic apprentices

Bus & tru,-k engine mechancis

Airc:raft engine mechanics

Small engine repairers

Automoile body repairers

Aircraft mechanics, except egine

Heavy equipment mechanics

Farm equipment me,-hanics

Industrial machinery repairers

Ma,-hinery maintenance c.:cupations

Electronic repairers, commun, equipment

Data processing equipment repairers

Hc,usehold appliance repairers

Telephc, ne line installers

Telephone installers

Miscellaneous electronic equip, repairers

Heating & air cc,nditioning mechanics

Camera & watch repairers

L.ocksm iths

Office machine repairers

Mechanical control repairers

Elevatc, r installers

Millwrights

Specified mechanics & repairers, n.e.c.

Not specified mechanics & repairers

Supervisors; br i,:kmasc,ns

Supervisors, carpenters

Supervisors, electricians

Supervisors, painters

Supervisors, plumbers

Supervisors, n.e.c.

Brickmasons & stonemasons

Bri,:kmason & stonemason apprentices

Tile setters

Carpet installers

I-:arpenters

Carpenter apprentices

Drywall installers

Electricians

Electrician apprentices

Electri,::al power installers

Painters

Paperhangers

Plasterers

F'lumbers

Plumber apprentices

Concrete & terrazzo finishers

Glaziers

Insulation wc,rkers

F'.-_ving& surfa,:ing e_l_ipment c,peratc, rs

DI

11

275

3

63

'.5

609

945

5

694

881

156

204

887

790

77

•i:. (')o _.

76

915

•.Jj

59

130

840

..-_.? ('.}

416

69

46

183

91

44

2214

I, 189

601

13

29

107

0 .'?,

35

785

2717

7

49

177

2,490

19

179

1,713

90

275

657

_,6

71

1,340

6

71

85

150

:2
Appendix

eoo f er 'IB

Sheetmetal duct installer..-:_:

Structural metal workers

Dri].lers, earth

Construction trades, n.e.c.

Supervisors, extracti, ve occupations

Drillers, oil well

Explosives workers

Mining machine operators

Mining occupations, n.e.c.

Super v _s,:,r s, pr,:,du,: t _on ,:,c c upat i ,:,ns

Too] ,.._,die makers

Tc,c,l & die maker apprenti,::e.-'_

Precision assemblers, metal

Machinists

Machinist apprentices

Boilermakers

Precision grinders

Pat ternmakers, metal

Lay-out workers

Precious stones & metals wc,r kers

Engravers, metal

Sheet metal wc,rkers

Sheet metal worker apprentices

Miscellaneous precision metal wc,rkers

Patternmakers & mode], makers, wood

Cabinet makers & bench carpenters

Furniture & wood finishers

Dressmakers

Tailors

Upholsterers

Shoe repairers

Miscellaneous pre,:ision apparel wc,rkers

Hand molders & shapers, except .jewelers

Patternmakers

Optical goods workes

Dental laboratory technicians

Bookbinder s

Electrical equipment assemblers

Miscellneous precision workers n.e.c.

But,:hers & meat ,:utters

Bakers

Food batchmakers

Inspectors & testers

_djusters & calibrators

Water & sewage treatment plant operators

F'ower plant operatc, rs

Stationary engineers

Miscellaneous plant & system operatc, rs

Lathe & turning machine set-up operators

Lathe & turning machine c,perators

Milling & planiny machine operators

Stamping press machine c,perators

F.:c,].lingmachine operators

Drilling machine ,:,perators

Grinding & polishing maciine operators

Forging machine operators

Numerica] control machine operators

58

2::._'5

156

16:3

1.7

291

311

378

13'9

110

1.90

7,221

1,272

221

4_

3,476

178

1:36

154

19

227

4:3

43

5"3

13

0

30

56

40

146

55

126

47

ll

14

182

135

30

36

2,047

292

258

92

22

1,556

100

145

92

387

162

175

499

aa

683

115

467

1,266

68

130
Appendi x

Miscellaneous ma,-'hineoperators

Fabri:ating ma,:hine c,peratcrs, n.e.c.

Molding & casting machine operators

Metal plating machine operators

Heat treating equipment operators

Mi sc el 1ane,z, us met a 1 ma,.:h i ne oper .at,::,rs

Wood ].athe machine c,perators

Sawinq machine ,:,per atc, rs

Shaping & j,:,ining machine r',peratc, rs

Nail ..:_.tackir,q.. .. machine c,perators

Misc. woc,dworking machine operators

Printing ma,:hLne operators

F'hotoengravers & ].ithc, graphers

Typesetters & ,:c, mpositc, rs

Miscellaneous printing machine c,perat,-,rs

Winding & twi. sting machine operators

Knitting & weaving machine operat,-,rs

Textile ,:utttng machine operators

Textile sewing machine operatc, rs

Shc, e mac h i ne ,:,per at,:,r s

F'ressing machine c,perators

Laundering & dry ,_-leaning math. c,perators

Miscellaneous textile machine c,peratc, rs

C:ementing & gluing machine ,:,pratc,rs

F'ackaqing & filling machine operators

Extruding & fc, rming ma,-hine operators

Mixing _: blending machine operators

Separating machine operatc, rs

C:ompressing machine operators

Painting machine c,perators

Roasting & baking machine operators

Washing & cleaning machine operatc, rs

Fc, lding machine c,perators

Furnace & c,ven operatc, rs

C:rushing & grinding machine operators

Slicing & cutting machine operators

Motion picture projectionists

F'hotographic process machine operators

Miscellaneous machine operators, n.e.c.

Machine operators, nc,t spe,:ified

Welders & cutters

Solderers & brazers

Assemblers

Hand cutting & trimming ,:,ccupations

Hand mc,lding & forming occupations

Hand painting & decc, rating ,:,c,:_Lpations

Hand engraving & printing _.:cupations

Hand grinding & p,.',lishing o,:cupations

Mi s,:: el ].aneous hand work i ng o,:,--upat ions

Produ,:tion inspectors & examiners

F'roductic, n testers

Prc,duction samplers & weighers

Graders & snrters, except agricutlural

Supervis,:,rs, motc, r vehicle operatc, rs

Truck drivers, heavy

Truck drivers, light

Dr ivet--sales wc,r ker

Bus drivers 59

c2 71. .Jo4

108

503

394

1 _9_J

45

28

188

7

29

649

88

210

55

85

I0

i, 024

51

296

171

125

298

908

219

341

13'9

74

657

1

27

63

854

63

557

13

156

4,078

1,025

"? 375

o _.J

6,523

0 "7

67

315

12

39

90

3,579

495

18

Iii

56

_.,,124

768

167

I, I()0
Appendi',,

Ta?,.i,:abdrLvers & ,_-hauffeurs 482

Parkinc] l.,::,tattendants 57

Mc,tc, r transportation ,_-,,-c,.!p_.tions, n.e,,-. 4

Raii rc,ad condu,::tors & yar dmast er s 6"7

I_,_-omc, t Lve operat i nq ,:,,:cupat i c,ns 202

Railroad brake & switch operatc, rs 139

Rail vehL,-le ,:,peratc,rs, In.e.c. ._._

Ship captains & mates 1.56

Sailors ,:__deckhands 4,4

BricJge & ]iqhthouse tenders 3

Supervis,:,rs, material moving equipment 69

Operat inq engineers 32.0

L,:,ngshor e equ i preen t ,:,pet- at or s 0

Hc:ist & winch operators 11.3

Crane & tower c,peratc, rs 490

Excavating & loading machine operators 142

Grader, dozer, _, .. s,: raper ,:,pet- at or s 177

Indust. truck & tractor equip, operators '957

Mi s c. ma t e r i a 1 mc,v i n g e q u i p men t op e r a t c,r :s ,414

Supervisors, equipment cleaners, n,e..'-. 21

Helpers, mechanL,:s & repairers 63

Helpers, cc,nstructic, n trades 256

Helpers, surveyc, r I_

He].per _.s,extract ive oc cup at i,::,ns 19

F:onstruc tic,n Iabor er s '956

F'roduc ti __n hel per s _o8 "_

Gar bage ,:o LIec t,:,rs 170

St evedor es 102

Stock handlers & baggers 884

Machine feeders & offbearers 271

Freight, stock & material handlers, nec 1,1'97

Garage & service static, n related c.:cupat. 360

Vehicle washers & equipment cleaners 43,¢

Hand packers & packagers 575

Laborers, except constructic, n 2,664

Total 236,679

Sour,:e: Management Inf,:,r,L_tior_Services, In,:.; 1989.

6O