Hacker News Reader

Comment by cee_el1234 | Hacker News Reader

If this is as true as it sounds - holy cow that's so sad !

As someone who worked for NASA for 15 years I can tell you this is absolutely true.

Not really - lots of great, high paying engineering and manufacturing jobs came out of that program. Plus all the support that goes with it.

> [...] lots of great, high paying engineering and manufacturing jobs came out of that program.

That's a pretty bad excuse: leaving the same money with the taxpayers would have funded jobs that actually did something people wanted enough to pay with their own money.

It’s not purely an excuse. If somone makes 100k on one of these projects but would have made 50k if they did not exist then the economy is out 50k worth of labor. But, some of that delta between 50k>100k is payed back in additional taxes.

There is plenty of waste, but it’s significantly smaller than the direct costs suggest. Especially when such programs reduce unemployment as the economy is not out useful labor, and taxes collect a significant portion of the outlay back.

I think of it as the governmental make work program. It’s only been digestible, politically, when it’s tied to this sort of project. Without it, my home state would be severely affected.

> Without it, my home state would be severely affected.

New Mexico?

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...

The economy isn’t “out 50k of labor”, the government is saving 50k that it could use to pay someone else who wants to work at wherever their headquarter is.

I am referring to the opportunity cost.

Assume Bob could do something and get paid 50k per year, government pays Bob 50k/year to stay at home. Bob makes 50k either way.

But, if Bob does not work for a year then the economy loses 50k/year worth of labor, that’s true if bob makes 40k staying at home or 200k staying at home. It’s also true if the government pays Bob to do something that creates zero value.

There's also a strategic purpose: it's easier to hire ICBM designers if designing ICBMs isn't the sole career path for them.

Yeah, similar story for nuclear power. I don't think people understand that very few competent STEM undergrads would choose to go into the submarine force if they saw no job on the other side of the suffering necessary to get through prototype and multiple deployments. As it is I've heard something like 30 out of 190 per year group make it to command some 20 years later. So that's 160 people a year who have at least some thought that their skills can transfer to a civilian job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com