Can Manned Spaceflight Save the Economy?

Barry asks: "Driving home last night I was listening to a particularly goofy AM talk station. Just before the syndicated UFO talk show 'Strange Days... Indeed' came on, the discussion turned to the Mars Rovers and George Bush's newfound love of space exploration. The interesting thought was that a large number of American political leaders were about to join Bush in endorsing a new manned space program because it would generate 'millions of jobs'. Given that manufacturing jobs are being shipped offshore, and high tech jobs are following, this almost made sense. A primarily unemployed population could mean big trouble. So I am wondering how many people were employed during the height of NASA's glory days, and what kind of economic impact would we expect if a similar program - a Mars mission for example - were launched today?"

Comments

ummm flawed logic?

[BFedRec]

Is it just me or is that the most crazy financial logic heard in a long time. You're going to have a government agency employing people so they have jobs? Their money coming from tax dollars... which would be coming from the population at large. You're not going to save an economy by employing MORE people from the tax dollars. It just won't work. Basically you're just recycling money, quickly the funding would dry up. Build up the deficit even quicker than it is now.

CharlesP

CharlesP

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[Your_Mom]

Oooh! Oooh! I get to use my macroeconomics course! My professor would be so proud.

There is always a finite amount of money in the system, not everyone has it at one time. NASA give out a $1e9 contract. Company A wins it. Company A subcontracts certain aspects of the contract to companies B and C. Now, companies B + C buy frobs and gizmos from company D, E, and F. Now, what happens here? Companies A-F all prosper as they have people needing their goods and services, and the employees of said companies prosper, as they have jobs. Life is good. *waves little flag*

If you ever have a chance, take a course in macroeconomics, take it, really interesting stuff.

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[Fat Cow]

The money that NASA gives out didn't come from the air, it came out of the pockets of the citizens. If NASA hadn't taken the money, they would have spent/invested it in something else. If you're measuring economic benefits, you have to compare the Mars mission to the alternatives.

I don't think it will be beneficial economically - at root, economic growth comes from using and accessing raw materials in a more efficient way. You actually have to come up with better ways of doing things and making things.

Of course, there may be other benefits of people going to Mars, but they aren't economic.

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[mabhatter654]

I don't think it will be beneficial economically - at root, economic growth comes from using and accessing raw materials in a more efficient way. You actually have to come up with better ways of doing things and making things.

Actually NASA in the 60's and 70's at the height of their spending was great for the economy...Lots of cool stuff was developed that has found it's way into YOUR house. Everything from ink pens, to velcro, to advanced methods of metallurgy [which you don't see, but companies that make your stuff do] Another real push for a space program would do wonders for US technology...as long as it was prevented from being outsourced!

Re:ummm flawed logic?

[BFedRec]

Yeah... but the problem is that all of those people are doing well, and have jobs, and are making money... but that money comes from the government taking it from everybody else. You can't base an economy on the government taking money from one group to give to another, even if it IS via a job.

CharlesP

rediculous

[pizza_milkshake]

I am not a chronic bush-hater, but this is fucking rediculous. The man's legacy will be stupid quotes and mediocre examples of the 3 easiest popularity boosting projects possible: a tax cut, a war and astronauts. For however many 100s of billion of $ all this will cost in the end, he could have done a whole lot more.

Re:rediculous

[ConceptJunkie]

At best he'll get a footnote.

I disagree. I think Kennedy got the credit he deserved for establishing his challenge to put a man on the Moon in the 1960's. I don't ever recall hearing Nixon being the Moonshot President because he happened to be in office when the event finally occurred.

There is no doubt that there could be a political motivation for doing this, but the potential for applied science and engineering is incredible... far more than anyone who doesn't follow the Space Program closely would ever realize.

However, to suggest that Bush is doing this to score points with the electorate is pretty naive. Hell, I would bet a majority of people believe that silly Fox TV show calling into question that the original Moon landings ever happened.

Remember, a large portion of the population still believes in things like horoscopes, the psychic hotline, and the daVinci code. We are not, as a whole, very good at critical thinking.

Nothing diversionary

[Anonymous Coward]

He's had a great economic plan all along. Too bad the Democrats in Congress keep balking him with the idea that a bad economy will help Democrats in November.

There is nothing diversionary at all.

Re:A whole lot more?

[DAldredge]

UBL's head on a stick. You know, they main guy behind 9/11.

Or have we forgotten about him?

sure, why not?

[ajagci]

Large amounts of government spending can do wonders for the economy, if citizens are willing to make the sacrifices (i. e. pay the taxes). And manned space travel, useless as it is, is at least less destructive to foreign relations and industry than wars, Bush's other favorite economic activity.

However, tax cuts and massive spending don't work. And private industry is unlikely to go into space anytime soon--it's not profitable.

Re:sure, why not?

[sql*kitten]

Another problem is that, by requiring payments, private schools necessarily only enroll students whose parents take an active interest in their education.

Actually, that's not generally true; typically students at private schools are enrolled there as boarders because their rich parents want to be rid of them until they're adults and hopefully have something interesting to say. Maybe that's different outside the UK.

The rich often pay less a percentage of their incomes than the poor or middle class, when you factor in all taxes, especially sales taxes.

"The rich" is a canard. The multi-millionaires are a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. You are "rich" as far as the tax system is concerned - i.e. a higher-rate taxpayer - with a salary of around GBP 30,000 (that's roughly USD 50,000). You can be one of "those who can afford to pay more" as far as the government is concerned, yet be unable to buy an apartment anywhere near London.

Re:sure, why not?

[CompVisGuy]

Let's say 2 adults, 2 children that's GBP 12,000.

You are assuming one earner per household. While this might have been true in the 1970s, it certainly isn't true today.

The figure of approx GBP 23,000 you quote is before income tax, national insurance, council tax and all the other various taxes levied by various parts of the government. They can easily eat up half of your income.

I agree, but the proportion of income paid in tax by a low income earner is smaller than that paid by a high income earner. While a high income earner may find half their income going on taxes, a low income earner won't.

Are you trying to suggest that poverty automatically leads to crime? That seems rather a shaky assertion to me.

I would not put it in those words. I would say that where there is poverty, there is a prevalence of a certain type of crime. I'm not saying that poverty explains "white-collar crime" like insider trading! But you are much more likely to be mugged in an area where there is poverty. Someone who is poor is much more likely to end up in prison. There are many explanations for this phenomenon (e.g. the best teachers don't want to live in poor neighbourhoods, so poor neighbourhoods get poor schools, so the children of the neighbourhood do not qualify for well-paid jobs), but I don't want to rehash them all here. I would make the general assertion that poverty is a significant cause of crime. I don't think this is a shaky assertion at all.

Perhaps you would care to explain how paying people not to engage in productive economic activity results in the creation of a productive economy?

That's not what's happening and it's a simplistic and biased way of looking at things. Getting back to your original assertion that the direct return on investment in the welfare system is negative, I admit this is true. However, the less you invest in a welfare system, the more negative the return on investment. That is to say, if there is no support for those who fall on hard times, like the sick, the mentally ill, the disabled and those in poor housing, there is an associated cost. This cost manifests itself as crime, political instability and disease. These factors have measurable negative effects on the economy. These are the reasons we have a welfare system. This is how the welfare system supports a productive economy. Give me examples of prosperous countries that have no welfare system and yet have low crime and disease rates and a stable political environment.

About the only way to do that would be to argue that welfare keeps the non-productive out of the way of the productive, but still, there are more cost effective ways to do that then paying them to sit around watching daytime TV and smoking cigarettes all day. I believe the Americans call it "workfare".

Your argument assumes that there is some sort of underclass of unproductive people whose sole purpose in life is to retard the progress of the productive. I disagree that all of those who claim unemployment benefit don't want to work. Look at the British mining and steel industries; consider the corporate practice of downsizing. I admit that during the 1980s, being on the dole was seen by many to be a career option, if all they wanted from life was to make do. The current emphasis on getting the unemployed into jobs makes this career option much less achievable. There is also a class of people who claim unemployment benefit while taking 'cash in hand' work. This is being stamped out, and technology is helping here. But I doubt that making do is the dream of anyone -- it is the last resort of those failed by the education and other systems who see no other way to survive.

On the surface, Workfare sounds like an attractive idea. Put the unemployed to work on menial tasks that nobody else wants to do and pay them a living wage.

Re:Lunar penal colony?

[jtev]

not realy, the earth is always on the same vector to the same spot on the moon, so it's very easy for them. if they can see the arabian pennesula, it makes it even easier.

There are jobs, and there are jobs...

[gregwbrooks]

The question isn't whether another Apollo Project-esque endeavor will create jobs -- of course it will.

The question is: Are those the jobs the best way to go about goosing the economy, and is this the way we want to develop them?

Unless President Bush plans to privatize the whole effort, we're talking about jobs paid for with federal contracting funds, and those are some of the most inefficient jobs you can release into the economy.

There's nothing inherently wrong with jobs generated by federal spending -- after all, the government needs to buy stuff just like any company. However (and this is the important part) jobs that grow out of federal spending programs aren't the most efficient way to translate capital into work.. First, the money has to come from somewhere (i.e., taxes). Then, it goes through an inefficient bureaucracy that needs some off the top to perpetuate and grow itself. Then, it goes back into the economy in the form of federal spending, but the spending is often uncompetitive because of pork set-asides or

Bottom line: If you put a few billion dollars into federal spending in the private sector and compared the economic impact with simply leaving the capital in individual and business hands to figure out what their highest and best uses were, you'd see more efficient use of the capital (read: more net benefit) from the latter.

Oh, and although everyone likes the high-tech aspects of the space program, the fact is that there would be many, many old-economy manufacturing jobs created or sustained for every engineer or scientist.

Burn the straw men

[MrRobahtsu]

Well duh, of course government spending on anything to create government jobs isn't going to improve the economy. Only democrats believe that.

But since similar space programs have been done before, perhaps one should (gasp!) look at past performance and ROI before setting up straw men to knock down.

Ever wonder why the US leads the world in many areas of computers, electronics, manufacturing, matereials, etc.? The space program isn't the only reason, but it's a big one.

Ever wonder what the real ROI is, or how many technologies and materials in your own home are spin-offs from space-related research?

http://www.floridatoday.com/space/explore/stories/ 1997b/110197e.htm
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

But I guess the Bush-hating pastime is much more fun and emotionally satisfying than actually dealing with the facts. I just wouldn't expect it from a group of nerds. Oh wait. This is slashdot. Nevermind.

Spend money we don't have to go where there is...

[Futurepower(R)]

"Something about the multiplayer effect always smelled like bullshit to me..."

Any lie to get re-elected.

Borrowing money from our children may be a good strategy in times of extreme emergency. Borrowing money to explore dirt and rocks in space is not an extreme emergency.

I don't like Dubya, but...

[Gadzinka]

Hey, I don't like Dubya as much as the next guy, but big projects finansed from public budget fuel all the economy. Just look at what Iraq war did to American economy.

It's all the same, no matter if government spends it on bombs or space rockets. When they spend money big time, the main agency gets money and spends it. Its contractors get money and spend it.

And finally: their empoyees get money and spend it. On food, homes, cars, hi-tech gizmos (in any order). But suddenly all the people that produce those goods have money to spend it, and...

This is called macroeconomy, as someone down the page said it. It's better when it's fueled by space program than by another war.

Just my .02pln

Robert

Re:I don't like Dubya, but...

[kraut]

Why why why does everyone assume that a falling dollar is BAD for the US?

It's great news for the US economy, just like the rising euro is a big pain for that economy. It means your imports are more expensive, and need to be substituted with internal production, and you're exports are cheaper, which means they'll sell better.

Oh, and all those bloody foreigners that hold US Treasuries have just lost 20% of their value ;)

Seriously, though, falling dollar within reason is good for the US; deficit spending & increasing debt isn't.

Of course, IANAEconomist

Re:I don't like Dubya, but...

[YrWrstNtmr]

It's all the same, no matter if government spends it on bombs or space rockets.

There is a difference. In the latter, not quite so many people die.

OP: Your answer

[Glonoinha]

Manned space flight (ie, the government spending MAD DOLLARS) is not going to save the economy if the government doesn't do something about outsourcing the jobs. Not just the fancy new space jobs, ALL JOBS.

http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20030316 S0 003
In New Mexico, the unemployment insurance department recently paid (some offshore (India) outsourcing company) $6 million for an online unemployment-claims system. How ironic is that, spending taxpayer money on a system to handle the growing number of unemployed people, but sending all that money overseas and not using it to employ Americans. That's just ignorant.

There is one way to "save the economy" : bring back the jobs. Simple as that. Make off-shoring and outsourcing economically unviable (tax the living hell out of it, for example) or simply make it illegal - or quite simply America is going to be totally and utterly fscked.

It's not really about creating jobs

[Linux_ho]

It's about developing new technologies. Don't ask how many people NASA and their contractors (and subcontractors, etc. etc) employed. Ask how our society has benefitted from advances in science that come as a direct result of funding NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. How many jobs today aren't affected by advances in materials science or other technologies that can be traced back to NASA?

Re:Only if it feeds back

[R.Caley]

This could be a gigantic boon for the economy, in theory. Anybody who's interested in space has read about the resources and the possibilities in space[...]

That we have read about them does not mean they exist.

If you know of any, why have you not shown the evidence to the men in suits and got yourself a few billion in venture capital to go get them? These people were willing to fund .coms for KaTe's sake.

There may be payback from space exploration in a few generations, even Vinland turned out to be useful for something:-). However, the reason for going out there is because we can and because not doing so would be against basic human nature. Curiosity only killed the cat because the human who was curious had a nice sharp knife and an interest in how cats work.

If the US government wants to spend money on a keynsian economy support package they'd do better to pick things which need doing. Fixing the electricity distribution system would seem to be a prime candidate.

Just one problem with the theory, though

[mc6809e]

What jobs are lost because taxpayers have less to spend in the private economy?

What government spending can do is redirect jobs from one part of the economy to another part. Of course, it's hard to know what jobs exactly are lost in other parts of the economy because of this.

What ends up being really important is this: are those jobs being used to produce things that people want? If the money stays in the taxpayers pocket, they are very likely to make their wishes known in the market place and they are very likely to get what they want.

If it is taxed away for a space program, it's less obvious that they'll be getting what they want. I have to admit, though, I love looking at hubble pictures all day. I think the government has given me my monies worth, at least.

The other important thing to ask is whether or not the jobs being moved from one sector of the economy to another are going to improve efficiency. If people are creating as part of their job technology that makes the production of goods and services more efficient, then it might be a win overall because people get more for their money. A lot of military spending has this effect. How much technology was developed that later made production more efficent? Certainly the investment in computer technology has paid off in all sorts of ways.

There are also situations where spending tax money acts a simple transfer of goods and services and this can actually be a real burden on the economy if the recipients don't help improve production or don't recipricate.

Imagine a hamburger-flipper that is taxed at a 15% rate (payroll taxes for example). Now if that money is simply given to another group of people (retirees for example), when this group shows up at the hamburger joint with that tax money, they are in effect collecting free hamburgers and the taxpayer is unknowling giving them away because all the money he sees looks the same.

Now after getting back this money, it will of course be taxed again and some of it will go right back to that group to collect more hamburgers and the cycle will repeat, with 15% of the hamburgers being made for free for some group.

So the question becomes, how much are people willing to put up with this burden before it starts impacting their own production? No hamburger stand ever stayed in business by giving all it's hamburgers away for free.