CBO: Immigration Bill Would Drive Down American Workers’ Wages

Matthew Boyle, Breitbart, June 18, 2013

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) report on the Senate’s immigration bill predicts that the legislation would drive down the wages of American workers and make it difficult for Americans to find jobs in an already-damaged economy.

On page seven of the analysis, the CBO and JCT conclude that the “Gang of Eight” bill would drive down American workers’ wages. “Taking into account all of those flows of new immigrants, CBO and JCT expect that a greater number of immigrants with lower skills than with higher skills would be added to the workforce, slightly pushing down the average wage for the labor force as a whole, other things being equal,” the report reads.

On the same page, the CBO and JCT analysis found that illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty, or legalized status, would see a spike in their income while Americans’ incomes dropped. “However, CBO and JCT expect that currently unauthorized workers who would obtain legal status under S. 744 would see an increase in their average wages,” it reads.

Similarly, a bullet point on page nine shows that CBO and JCT believe that demand for workers would “dampen,” meaning it would be harder for Americans to find jobs if the bill passed. {snip}

These revelations in the report contradict a statement Gang of Eight member Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) made celebrating the analysis’s top-line numbers. “The CBO has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers,” Rubio said in that statement.

{snip}

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Puggg

    Commonsense Budget Office. Add more people to the same number of jobs and wages go down.

    • Manaphy

      That’s first year economics summarized for you. Too bad that Rubio and McCain either don’t understand this or are intentionally lying about job creation.

      • me

        Intentionally lying….even Rubio and McCain aren’t that stupid. No, wait…

    • The__Bobster

      Wages will go down for those who still have jobs. The rest will be dependent on government.

      • NordicHeritage

        This is what the mutli-national corps want. You will not see jobs brought back here till the wages are competitive with 3rd world hell holes. This is what Corporate Capitalism is like. People don’t want to hear this but we have been digging this hole since NAFTA. Ross Perot warned everyone that NAFTA and other free trade schemes would suck jobs out of the USA but people wanted cheap consumer goods. All the while the ceo’s and boards of these giant corps. were laughing at the gullibility of the average us citizen.

        • Bossman

          If NAFTA included free labor mobility, then those low wage workers in Mexico could move north an demand higher wages and the system would equal itself out after a period of time. Free trade without free labor mobility is just exploitation.

          • JohnEngelman

            Capital is always more mobile than labor. Even so, I doubt many American factory workers would rather work in Mexican factories. They want to earn decent wages in American factory workers like their fathers did.

    • Bossman

      If wages go down, then prices should also go down and that equals low inflation which is a good thing for the value of the currency.

      • Sloppo

        Don’t expect prices on things you need to go down very much. Fuel prices are controlled by people who are very unlikely to allow that sort of thing.

      • Not necessarily. If the good or service is labor-intensive, then probably yes. If it’s raw materials-intensive, then it depends on the market prices of those raw materials.

      • JohnEngelman

        Wages will go down because there will be more job applicants. Prices will go up because there will be more consumers. Consequently profits will go up. Raising profits, rather than the illusory “social conservatism” of Hispanics is the reason Republican politicians are pushing for more immigrants.

        The typical Hispanic male in this country is not a patriarch who owns a Mexican restaurant, who takes his family to the local Spanish language Roman Catholic church on Sunday, and who hopes his daughters are still virgins when they get married there.

        He is more likely to be an unmarried man with an illegitimate child or two that he might not even be in touch with. He has a low wage job. He knows he will always have a low wage. He might even have a felony conviction. He is not Republican material. He does make it more difficult for white men to support their legitimate children.

        • Jefferson

          Your right about Hispanic men and illegitimate children. 54 percent of Hispanic children in the U.S are raised by a single mother. So much for “Hispanic family values”

          Statistically Whites and Asians have better family values than Hispanics.

        • Bossman

          So you’re saying that people on the margins of society are still an economic threat to educated white male citizens? In a free economy, an employer should have a right to choose who can do the job at the lowest cost to himself.

          • JohnEngelman

            Low wage immigrants are an economic threat to poorly educated Americans. Well educated immigrants are “an economic threat to educated white male citizens.”

            On a number of occasions I have pointed out that employers benefit from a high degree of immigration, and that employees, which is to say the vast majority of Americans, do not.

            I am not concerned with the “right to choose” of employers. I am concerned with the well being of employees.

          • You once seemed to be a socialist, and now you’re very different.

          • Sloppo

            Employers have to pay for many who do not work for them, so this really isn’t a free economy.

  • BonusGift

    It never ceases to amaze me that supposed grownups can debate one of the few things that is axiomatically true in economics: more supply (assuming no change in demand, or reduced demand) and you get a lower price (or on this case lower wages). Even my children get this, yet the disingenuous and mentally challenged continue to push the idea that importing tens of millions of third worlders and their offspring will somehow make wages magically go up. What is not mentioned are (i.e., in addition to lower wages) all the other costs associated with the explosion of economic parasites in our midst.

    • Bossman

      Why do wages need to go up, if goods and services are cheap? Low wages equals low inflation and that is a good thing for the value of the currency.

      • BonusGift

        Why do wages need to go down?

  • Driving down wages for Americans is precisely the point.

    • JohnEngelman

      In order to drive up profits for Republican businessmen.

      • And provide cushy make-work jobs for Democrats.

        Right?

        • JohnEngelman

          They won’t be “cushy.” I think most Americans would prefer good wages in the private sector like their parents had.

      • Jefferson

        If the Republican Party was not run by pro amnesty/pro open borders crony capitalists, could you have seen yourself voting Republican ?

        • JohnEngelman

          I give the Republican Party credit for the decline in the crime rate since 1980. That has been achieved by tripling the prison population. That is all I give the GOP credit for. Tax cuts for the rich do not do me any good..

          • Putting more people in prison doesn’t do me any good, because I used to know who went there.

            Luis Osorio got 37 years for being stabbed in the neck. Yes; he got 37 years of state time for BEING STABBED IN HIS NECK. He was a computer programmer for Qwest on the outside, and was such a good guy that he ended up programming computers at the prison in Sterling. He received parole at his first hearing, and I am so happy for him I cried several times. I can’t write to him now, but I’m delighted he’s out. Luis did 13 years of it, which is a rather long time.

            David Warren Veren went back to state CDoC prison for six years because of his drug use. He never got over his mother dying of cancer, and over the telephone, I repeatedly tried to convince him to move near here, just so he wouldn’t be so lonely and bored.

            Robert James Ocampo went back big-time and won’t get out of the feds until 2036. He used to plan out small business start-ups in minute detail, so I figured he wanted to go legit. He played a beautiful chess game and is about as bright as I am.

            These are real people, and they treated me well enough that I still care very much about them, even though there isn’t a damned thing I can do to help them.

  • bigone4u

    As an economist I am sometimes proud of my profession. It does my heart good to see that intelligent people commenting on the Internet understand supply and demand, even if the morons in Congress don’t get it. My recollection is that the CBO uses static analysis in doing their studies. If dynamic analysis were used, I suspect the outcomes would look worse for they typical American citizen.

    • Remember the Heritage Fdn study which showed a six terabuck bar tab for the Gang Bangers of Eight bill? When the open borders EL CHEAPO labor lobby empire didn’t strike back by impugning the motives of the study by smearing one of its co-authors, they deployed a secondary subtle line of attack, that Heritage’s study used static analysis and not dynamic analysis. What they wanted us to presume is that the flood of newly legalized people and the swarms of new border jumpers would create such an economic boom in this country (as if the vicious cycle of EBT Cards – China-made junk – Wal-Martinez parking lot is the way to build an economy) that all the new GDP and taxes generated therefrom would cover the bar tab. The kind of dynamic analysis we both know should really be used would show that the bar tab will be much higher than $6.3T, not only because Official America vastly underestimates the number of illegals currently in country (Rush Limbaugh today hinted that that number might be as high as 46 million), but legalizing the ones here would make many more millions daisy-chain family unification de facto and eventually de jure legal, and in turn more illegals will jump across. All of whom will get the EBT card and all the gibsmedat goodies.

      • bigone4u

        Wal-Martinez? Good one. I need to remember that. At one of the local Wal-Marts, the clients are mostly Hindu, so I guess that would be a Wal-Martowelhead. Moving on…

        For others who don’t know the difference between static and dynamic analysis, static analysis assumes that everything besides a single change in a variable stays the same. Dynamic analysis relaxes this ceteris paribus (all else equal) assumption and allows for chain reaction type events. But even a dynamic economic analysis cannot capture the non-monetary costs of all sorts of minor social changes, such as having to hear salsa music blaring from car stereos all day.

        • Bossman

          So having to hear Salsa music would be the worst thing for you?
          Well then the deal won’t be so bad.

        • BonusGift

          Actually ‘dynamic analysis’ like “general equilibrium” analysis tends to come to even more dishonest conclusions than ‘static analysis’ in that most ‘economists’ today are not conservatives and it allows for move moving parts that can be twisted to fit an agenda, as well as it being more opaque.

  • Lop_Eared_Galoot

    And so the currency collapses when all the stimulus and QEs begin to actually enter the currency markets in force and the value of GDP and taxing the poor (who pay each other off the books) is actually _zero_. Because the USD has tanked.
    And we can’t eat ones and zeros on computers.
    Automation is the answer here. It always was as soon as we went for numbers and stupidity as welfare state empowerment of it’s enablers.
    A robot doesn’t have to be paid but the owner of the robot an be taxed in wage equivalents for either direct use of the robot or some fraction of what it produces.
    This enables barter trade, even in the wake of 1920s style German collapse and post-Locarno reinvention of our currency, probably as locally printed funds.
    i.e. Robots are the true ‘free labor, no social welfare’ creators of GDP excess.
    And that scares a lot of people at the very top. Because without dependence on foreign wage slaves to do scut work, the white society that has been bled dry will have very little reason to be loyal to either the new Americans. Or the traitors that let them in.
    The F-35 is going to cost 1.5 TRILLION dollars for a system that is as useless as the design-war it will never fight (nobody can afford the equipment standard).
    With that kind of funding available for useful-in-peace systems and with agencies like DARPA (Pitman, 1984) studying robotics for thirty odd years, do you really think that we wouldn’t have the system in place by now if it wasn’t in the interests of the very wealthy to destroy us with replacement wage slaves?
    Pre-Reagan, Whites created wealth by not throwing money away on credit spending and by having the highest conceptual intelligence on the planet. As recently as 1996 our tech exports were 50 billion dollars in the green. This was a massive threat to the wealth classes which simply could not create room at the top fast enough to accommodate real upwards mobility.
    So they sabotaged us. Our own people. By using propaganda to engender bad social habits and by anchoring us in place with non-white dependent populations.
    WE ARE THE TARGET.
    And that is why we must not remain bonded to a Union that will destroy us to save the wealth classes that are so foolish as to believe that they won’t be pulled down by the non-whites that follow in our footsteps. Down to the basement of third world poverty.
    We can’t beat them.
    But we can Separate from them for as long as there are too many of us to be butchered as a massive human rights violation.

    • I think the F-35 is a great airplane, and since Congress made it forever illegal to export the F-22 Raptor, it seems like a natural replacement for the F-16 that sold so well to NATO countries.

      • Lop_Eared_Galoot

        Michael,

        Where to begin…

        Okay. When it was first mooted as a do-all platform combining the roles of the Navy MRF and the Marine ASTOVL and the USAF CALF programs (1994) the jet was said to be 28-32-35 million dollar threshold system for the A/B/C models. With an R&D phase of 50 billion and an acquisition price of 190-220 billion dollars, that’s beyond a great deal (period F-16C.50 were costing the USAF 21 million, without engine) that’s unbelievable.

        Congress immediately canceled the JAST effort because they remembered ‘demonstration effort’ that was the ACF/LWF contest between the YF-16 and YF-17 and how that got jammed through to the benefit of only GD Ft. Worth. If the Services wanted a repeat of that, they needed to let the pigs legislative snuffle for their due acorns. Took about 4 years to apportion the defense pork and this as much as anything is why the program remains a largely U.S. centric defense industrial effort (far more than the F-16 was) because there is literally little left to buy-in on, even for the Tier-1/2 customers.

        Of course, in the interim, CRS/CBO had done studies (1997) which suggested that NONE of the materials or systems advances which were absolutely necessary to make this thing work were in fact available and developing them after the 2001 demval would in fact pose -massive- concurrency risks.

        Oh well, 2001 roles around the flyoff happens and so does 9/11. On the eve of what everyone knows will be a decade long war draining at least a trillion dollars from R&D and Acquistion into Ops Accounts, the USAF Secretary Roche` announces LMTAS as the winner with the X-35. This despite LM’s 60 million dollar cost overrun and the fact that the baseline A model is now (mumble mumble) 43 million dollars.

        The CRS/CBO were right of course. As of 2003 when the Preliminary Design Review was finished and the moldline solidified, the F-35 was between 3,600lbs and 4,100lbs overweight.

        Largely because the X-35 was a shell (say sham) airframe which didn’t incorporate ANY of the major production variables which were essential to defining the capability of the jet (the X-32 was actually closer here, at the subsystem level, despite a major difference in external PWSC configuration which was largely aesthetics driven).

        On the F-35, things like the weapons bay, landing gear mounts outside the wingroot join and major changes in the AMAD or Aircraft Mounted Accessories Drives (hydraulics, electrical generation etc.) were all drastically different because, gosh, they hadn’t been present on the X-35 at all.

        At this point (2005) all the beltway bandits, including the man who helped get the vastly superior F-22 cancelled were saying it’s a 65-70 million dollar airframe. At least.

        Which is a problem because now you are talking a 276 billion dollar program cost and an unavoidable Nunn McCurdy amendment breach whereby, if an acquisition exceeds it’s initial cost by more the 25% DOD _must_ cancel it. Or face going before Congress to beg on bended knee with justifications why this is ‘the only answer to the problem’.

        It wasn’t. Because, despite constant badgering to the contrary, when the USAF purchased as single F-22A as reward to LM Georgia for leaning up their production lines (their were originally supposed to be some 700 Raptors to replace F-15A/C on a nearly 1:1 basis) they paid exactly 117 million for the jet as flyaway.

        And yes, the F-22 is easily twice the plane that the F-35 is.

        Okay, so the F-35 is in breach and the sitting DefSec (it may have been Gates) did his pennies from heaven dance before the SASC and got his added funding.

        Except that everything they do to make the jet lighter ends up hurting the major buyer as variant of the airframe because they are in fact doing dangerous things like thinning wing skins. And dumb things like ditching the Quick Mate joints which allow you to bring major subassemblies together like Legos.

        And they still don’t have the weight down, something which is now again a program stopper because they are at CDR or Critical Design Review. If they cannot make weight then the program should STOP HERE because the Marine buy of some 480-600 jets is based on a useful STOVL capability and the USAF purchase of some 1,750 jets is priced out based on Marine participation while the Navy is, as usual, (JSF happened because of unbelievable, monumental, illegal, anti-Deficiency screw-ups by NavAir on the A-12) holding up the parade with their TAMP or Tac Air Modernization effort to neck down types and get the Marines onboard to buy a fixed amount of airframes in a common type/lot buy (the F-35B doesn’t work on real carriers btw. so the Marines are going to have to buy about 80 F-35C to be the Navy’s Reserve Air Wing).

        As then JSF SPO chief Admiral Steidel said: “If we go below 1,600 homebuy, the backend costs will be so high that LM will not be able to make a profit.”

        By leaching addon costs atop export sales and spares and upgrades for all they were worth.

        By throwing out everything but the dice on the windshield and adding a new lift fan made of titanium metal matrix which sorta-kinda (in combination with an absolutely maxxed out main engine aft post) makes the required thrust requirements for the VL happen, the CDR is signed off with only about 1,500lbs of weight overages. Again, this is a pass:fail moment that was pencil whipped under the rug.

        And now the export customers whose early model F-16AMs are the ones needing replacement soonest, start to bawl as they get private briefings about price increments.

        The Netherlands eventually busts loose with a figure in their parliament of 146 million flyway on -early lot- purchases. Which are contractually guaranteed by the FMS to be a certain percentage of total program costs or we the taxpayer will make up the difference.

        And we are now at about 320 billion overall for the acquisition.

        This reveal, comes at the same time as the Systems Development Demonstration models start flying and of course, being functional production testbeds with various degrees of working guts as hardware, they break about as often as they fly. Major problems are noted with system overheating and electrical generation shortcomings and even flight critical systems like the read-only FLCS or flight control software comes within a couple seconds of BSOD departing the jet (because it won’t fly without the powerbywire).

        It is then revealed that LM is at least 2 years behind on Software.

        Eggheads get together and work out a plan for what is rapidly becoming clear as being ‘Three Planes, One Name’ a jet where commonality is a joke that really means: “If one breaks the price point goes up another ten million on all of them…” so that flight test can proceed based on a shift from 2012 to 2014 and then 2018 Initial Operating Capability.

        And then the Marine jet flies. It’s fall 2009.

        And just about breaks the program. Again.

        As everything imaginable happens from cracks in major aft bulkheads to doors and hinges pulling loose in flight to unexpected levels of vibration.

        And the USMC gets put on a two year probation which effectively (shoulda happpened six years before) means they are decoupled from the program which will no longer have to meet their needs -if- they cannot get their platform working with ‘minor fixes’ which further differentiate the not-cousin parts and pieces.

        LM does at last get their software issues under control but only at the cost of dropping major capabilities which should have been available at IOC for ‘lot 4’ production at least 5 years after IOC. Mind you, this is the 2018, not the 2012, date. So it’s in fact going to be ELEVEN YEARS later.

        And that is about where we are, today. Flyaway cost per jet is now estimated at about 83-85 million each in full scale production. Total program acquisition costs are about 402 billion and total lifetime costs of the program are 1.5 trillion-with-a-T dollars.

        Of course this ‘cheaper than an F-16 in CPFH’ (Cost Per Flying Hour, the F-16 is about 8,000 dollars an hour) jet now runs about 35,000 dollar per flight hour and it /still/ breaks for first-year engineering student obvious reasons.

        The curved weapons bay doors pose a huge aeroacoustic problem as the fuselage slip stream pounds on them. The weapons bays themselves are so hot that munitions have to be recertified to be carried in them on a continuing ONW/OSW type basis of no fly zone maintenance rather than immediate expenditure.

        Both of which delayed start of even the abbreviated weapons testing which will accompany IOC.

        The stabilator tails, already fixed once, still get charred enough to delaminate and structurally endanger the airframe every time you light burner, so now it’s not a supersonic jet anymore either.

        Which may not matter since we’ve learned that the dragrise on this flying suitcase is so high that the B and C models will be between 16 and 43 seconds /slower/ to in acceleration from Mach .8 to 1.2 than they were promised to be (the A model is okay at only about 8 seconds which is liveable).

        Since modern jets have largely switched to IRST for passive BVR search, and burner shows up (at altitude) almost to the horizon when it’s lit, you can imagine what happens when you get a no-radar-return hotspot as an ‘unknown’ hotspot sprinting to Mach for dominant F-Pole (firing distance on missiles is actually more a matter of time of flight than absolute range but every little bit of boost helps).

        And there are other issues.

        The jet has a bulged-pregnant weapons bay and aft engine fairing. Along with modified inlets and outboard landing gear fairings as well as LERX extensions on the wings. All of which compromise signature thresholds outside of a very narrow FQ and X-Band aspect.

        And it has a tiny wing in the A/B model (470 square feet) along with a huge fuel load (18,900lbs) which means that it’s wingloading is about 110lbs per square foot while, even though the F135 engine produces more thrust in military than the F100 engine of the F-16 do in full burner, it has a relatively puny thrust to weight ratio of about .5:1 (52,000lb mission weight).

        This effects it’s instantaneous and sustained G capabilities as the jet is basically a 6/5G airframe which is roughly what the Phantom was.

        2 AMRAAM is not enough to penetrate and there essentially is no AGM-88 capability without breaking stealth.

        The 2,000lb laydown munition (as a copy of the F-117 success story of Desert Storm, only three years before development began) is outdated in a world where dropping empty buildings isn’t as useful as finding and attacking small point targets in mixed urban terrain. And the weapon we want to use for that mission will not fit into the bay.

        And nobody wants to admit that the easy way out of the hot-bay and too few internal weapons station issues is to switch to EWP or External Weapons Pods which is to say fuel tank sized encapsulation tubes with their own doors for ejecting 4 missile or 2 bombs plus 2 missiles.

        Nor do they want to talk about how standoff may be safer than limited stealth and the Brits have the best standoff missile (Meteor) with about twice the range of our AMRAAM.

        Nor does anyone come out and admit that we need a replacement for the 13ftX36″X810lb AGM-88 HARM because nothing can carry it internally and without it to poke out long-wave EWR surveillance systems eyes, most threats -can- track the Lightning II, just fine.

        Most especially it is absolutely verboten to mention that you only need real stealth for about 3-4 days until the IADS is completely in ruins and then legacy platforms can fly about as they please.

        And the reason they don’t mention this is that that would force us to reevaluate Stealth as an export proliferated (advantage lost) capability because _we don’t need_ to have swarm of allies when fighting the Chinese, North Koreans or Iranians. They simply won’t be able to reach the theater in time.

        And what this river-in-Egypt condition covers up is that the U.S. contractor chalets in LeBourget is basically stripped of military presence because the F-15E and F/A-18E/F are outclassed by every Eurocanard out there. While the F-35 is so expensive that even showing it to customers in the air displays is pointless because if you aren’t one of the early Tier customers, you are going to be amongst those who pay 150 million dollars for your jet and no one can afford to sign a contract for it.

        Oh, one other thing. The Pak-FA and J-20 both outperform the F-35 by miles and yards aerodynamically with the Chinese having stolen vast amounts of the F-35 avionics architecture through cyberattack as well.

        These Russian and Chinese stealth aircraft will be service ready by 2020 whereas the F-22 program delivered the last of 187 Raptors on May third of last year.

        • Think “AMRAAM”, a.k.a. “Slammer”. Fox three?

          • Lop_Eared_Galoot

            Michael,

            The AIM-120 AMRAAM is crippled by the fact that it was weight and size constricted in design (7″ body diameter and 350lbs) to be compatible with the F-16’s outer wing rails.

            Due to packaging issues, this essentially meant it was not available in time to be of use at the height of the last ‘window of vulnerability’ from 1980-1985 in the Cold War. It was simply too much in too small a package and the R&D period was protracted until MMIC circuitry brought the size of the guidance package down. In the meantime, if the Russians had come over the walls we would all be irradiate cinders because we could not have stopped them any other way.

            Had we instead chosen the easier packaging metric of a modified AIM-7 Sparrow (8″ BD and 510lbs) with tail controls and ARH-on-a-dumb-tether we would be in a completely different world because the F-15 doesn’t really care about the doubled weight and even if other nations (France, MICA, 6.5″ and 242lbs; Israel, Derby, 6.5″ 250lbs; Russia Adder, 8″ and 430lbs) had developed their own missiles on the same baseline of “Let’s give small fighters BVR, yeah, that’s a good idea!” technology proliferation for profit’s sake; the bigger American missile motor would vastly outrange them.

            And the F-35 in particular would not exist as it does today.

            Now, having said that, there are three ‘poles’ of missile performance you have to keep in mind when dealing with any LOAL or lock on after launch weapon.

            F-Pole

            Shooter—————————————–>Target

            TargetActive Missile—Target

            Target—————Slow Target

            Slow Shooter——————–>Fast Target

            The E-Pole is the residual Energy available at terminal intercept as a fractional function of firing distance. Expressed in relative G or feet per second overmatch, it is the amount of target evasiveness -at a given distance downrange- that a missile can overcome in assuredly striking the target.

            Like a cheetah cutting the corner on a gazelle fawn.

            In an idealized ‘No Escape Zone’ (NEZ) condition the target cannot get out of the missiles .9 SSPK (90% Single Shot Probability Of Kill) zone, no matter what combination of G or Expendable Countermeasure terminal defenses it uses.

            Reality tends to be more messy but the key to all of this is understanding that a missile which is just come off it’s motor burn may in fact be moving faster than is best for terminal engagement (Q limit on air moving over it’s aerodynamic controls to generate pursuit G) and a missile which has been lofted like a longbow shot may come downhill at the end of it’s extended trajectory with little or no energy reserve against a sudden target cross track evasion as it is coasting with no chase energy at all.

            Here too there are modifiers.

            Post Hole tactics use terrain masking or careful datalink/GCI ‘nose pull’ as drive around maneuvering to get past the nose-on radar cone of the targeted fighter sweep and thus fire from close in and usually under the cockpit sill where even visual detection is hard. Heavy jamming can have a similar effect.

            Chain Saw is the method by which you run a relay system of shots by charging forward, loosing and falling back in constant series of salvo’d missile fire as variable F/A/E pole kinematic behaviors on closing threats. Evade the first and you may have no energy left for the second or third while your enemy fleetingly runs in and out of your own engagement envelope.

            Shooter:Illuminator, using the power of modern AESA radars this is a technical solution which allows one jet to provide track while scan or TWS multi-target guidance for everyone’s missiles from a greater distance than a group of radar-off jets fire from, much closer in. This again serves to deceive an enemy as to the nature of their exposure to threat and particularly how fast those shots are going to both transit the midcourse and still be going (NEZ) at terminal. Obviously, stealth helps a lot here since the close in shooters are otherwise still at risk to counterfire if a canny threat should he happen to randomly snake his ground track 90` to look for a close in threat to his flanks.

            All things being equal, you must always beat the arrow over the archer which means that NEZ is the driving consideration in BVR combat.

            A missile which has a 4G target evasion pursuit overmatch capability can be defeated at any range or altitude. A 6G pursuit overmatch depends a great deal on timing because most jets simply don’t have the 8-9G sustained capability at 20,000ft they do at sea level (thinner air = lost thrust + lost lift).

            So… as a generic set of figures:

            AIM-120A 15-17nm max range. 8-10nm NEZ. (FPole)

            AIM-120B 21-25nm RMax. 10-12nm NEZ. (FPole)

            AIM-120C-5 with 5″ motor extension: 27nm RMax. 15nm NEZ

            AIM-120D with 11″ ERAAM motor: 45nm RMax. 20nm NEZ

            All of which must be taken as static figures (no parent boosting) and assume a relatively cooperative target that doesn’t immediately turn and extend at launch.

            The problem with the F-35 is that, with it’s low thrust to weight ratio and restricted (by enemy IRST detection) A/B use, it has to come way too close (25nm), even with AIM-120D, as a purely subsonic shooter, to get certain kills. And at these firing distances it is one the verge of detection by any number of RWR/IRST/Radar sensors which may then -force- continued engagement of enemy counter shots.

            The low onboard missile count of the Lighting in particular is critical here because, even with shooter illuminator standoff guidance the jet’s pilot cannot engage in what is called ‘shoot-shoot-look’ tactics of firing more than one missile at each target (with a little lag) as insurance.

            Instead, he/she must use ‘shoot-look-shoot’ wherein they wait for full weapon flyout and impact before firing again on any leakers. They simply don’t have the weapon reserves that a six-shout F-22 does.

            Of course support numbers count but even where you have a four plane F-35 formation where all are carrying bombs, you have only 8 BVR shots.
            And that may not be enough to take down particularly capable threat intercept before they simply bull their way through the AMRAAM attrition and start dominating the trans-merge fight with superior aerodynamics.
            In this, it must also be remembered that, by 25nm, the AMRAAM motor light is itself bloom-visible on IRST (Infra Red Search Track = passive electro optical).

            Since the F-35 cannot employ A/B to boost it’s weapons without also becoming visible to enemy IRST, it is in a bit of a dilemma because, once those two shots are gone, it’s next weapon engagement capability redunds to a 5,000ft GAU-22 25mm cannon.

            There have been published reports of USAF generals with combat time in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom saying privately that they are very uncomfortable with the idea of taking only two long lance weapons into combat with only the bootknife as backup.

            Which is where Meteor comes in.
            Given that fire requires three basic elements: heat, fuel and oxygen, a rocket motor uses an integral oxidizer that reduces the amount of propellant volume dedicated to fuel by about 20-30%.
            Go with an oxy-weak propellant grain and use an external intake to suck ‘free’ atmospheric oxygen and you get that volume back as pure fuel.
            Which translates into longer or more powerful impulse period (Meteor can do either) to keep pushing the weapon without going to a reduce sustainer thrust or even coasting as AMRAAM does.
            You only need enough oxy-strong boost propellant to get the missile up to a speed where the ram effect can feed outside air through the motor. The resulting ramjet missile propulsion is thus known as HFDR or Hybrid Flow Ducted Rocket.

            If AMRAAM has an effective flight time of 120 seconds and a powered flight time of 60 seconds, most of that under a very weak sustainer mode, Meteor, a British ramjet missile has a flight time of 200 seconds of which anything up to 130 is powered (generic figures again).

            The difference in powered-all-they-way vs. boost-sustain-coast propulsion means that the missile holds it’s median speed for longer and can actually increase for terminals which both shortens overall flight time and makes the E-Pole a lot more lethal, farther out.

            And this helps a great deal because it means a stealth aircraft never has to come close to the detection threshold limit where enemy sensors can pick it up regardless.
            While, if the weapon misses anyway, you are far enough off to be able to decide whether it’s wise to continue to press the engagement or slink away to ambush another day. Perhaps most importantly, it achieves it’s impressive 80-100nm RMax, 40-50nm NEZ capability regardless of shooter boost factor.

            Meteor is not a perfect match to the Lightning II. It does not fit on the weapons bay door mount that the F-35 uses for AMRAAM and putting it in the main bomb well means taking away primary air to ground mission ordnance which is ‘why you are there’.
            And being a foreign weapon, it will of course be subject to ‘NIH’ or Not Invented Here protectionist discrimination by our defense industrial base and services.
            But it is really the only solution for making the F-35 even remotely survivable in a modern war condition against threats with superior aerodynamic performance of their own and ever increasing sensor capabilities to detect and engage it at longer and longer counter-pole distances. LO or no.

            One other thing.

            Once you get out past 50nm or so, the normal attenuation in signal returns as well as refresh intervals in covering a very much larger/longer PRF cycle of total scan volume generally mean that absolute VLO performance is not as critical and you may in fact be able to get away with having some externally mounted weapons.
            Not on their own (rails and pylons create drag as well as RCS flash issues) but in stealthy EWP pods which encapsulate them until the moment of launch.

            An F-35 with two EWP and internal bay carriage combined can mount either 16 GBU-53/B small diameter bombs and 6 AMRAAM/Meteor class missiles. Or 8 bombs and 10 missiles.
            Which would make it a competent player, even by today’s standards (Su-30 series carries 10 missiles, Eurofighter carries 8).

            CONCLUSION:
            The F-35 is a cruel joke of Polish Fighter Design that has been played sadistically on both taxpayer and armed forces alike. But by acknowledging it’s limitations we may yet gain in terms of useful mission capability (at yet more added weapon integration cost$).

            It’s just a matter of acknowledging the threat bias (S2A is actually far more statistically dangerous on a historical basis) and mixing and matching ordnance as mission roles in acknowledging who has to die first to get through to the target while living to get home.
            At such tactical decision making, the highly trained U.S. fighter pilot communities have no equal or better. They simply must have working, competitive, weapons systems with which to maximize their skillset advantages.

          • Lop_Eared_Galoot

            Wow. That’s never happened before. An entire segment of my post just got distorted from what I am looking at in my WP window.

            Editing and repaste doesn’t seem to help.

            Sorry. I don’t know what to do.

            Do I need to worry about black helicopters?

          • Lop_Eared_Galoot

            Trying this again after a long retype…

            Michael,

            The AIM-120 AMRAAM is crippled by the fact that it was weight and size constricted in design (7″ body diameter and 350lbs) to be compatible with the F-16’s outer wing rails.

            Due to packaging issues, this essentially meant it was not available in time to be of use at the height of the last ‘window of vulnerability’ from 1980-1985 in the Cold War. It was simply too much in too small a package and the R&D period was protracted until MMIC circuitry brought the size of the guidance package down. In the meantime, if the Russians had come over the walls we would all be irradiate cinders because we could not have stopped them any other way.

            Had we instead chosen the easier packaging metric of a modified AIM-7 Sparrow (8″ BD and 510lbs) with tail controls and ARH-on-a-dumb-tether we would be in a completely different world because the F-15 doesn’t really care about the doubled weight and even if other nations (France, MICA, 6.5″ and 242lbs; Israel, Derby, 6.5″ 250lbs; Russia Adder, 8″ and 430lbs) had developed their own missiles on the same baseline of “Let’s give small fighters BVR, yeah, that’s a good idea!” technology proliferation for profit’s sake; the bigger American missile motor would vastly outrange them.

            And the F-35 in particular would not exist as it does today.

            Now, having said that, there are three ‘poles’ of missile performance you have to keep in mind when dealing with any LOAL or lock on after launch weapon.

            F-Pole

            Shooter—————————————–>Target

            TargetActive Missile—Target

            Target—————Slow Target

            Slow Shooter——————–>Fast Target

            The E-Pole is the residual Energy available at terminal intercept as a fractional function of firing distance. Expressed in relative G or feet per second overmatch, it is the amount of target evasiveness -at a given distance downrange- that a missile can overcome in assuredly striking the target.

            Like a cheetah cutting the corner on a gazelle fawn.

            In an idealized ‘No Escape Zone’ (NEZ) condition the target cannot get out of the missiles .9 SSPK (90% Single Shot Probability Of Kill) zone, no matter what combination of G or Expendable Countermeasure terminal defenses it uses.

            Reality tends to be more messy but the key to all of this is understanding that a missile which is just come off it’s motor burn may in fact be moving faster than is best for terminal engagement (Q limit on air moving over it’s aerodynamic controls to generate pursuit G) and a missile which has been lofted like a longbow shot may come downhill at the end of it’s extended trajectory with little or no energy reserve against a sudden target cross track evasion as it is coasting with no chase energy at all.

            Here too there are modifiers.

            Post Hole tactics use terrain masking or careful datalink/GCI ‘nose pull’ as drive around maneuvering to get past the nose-on radar cone of the targeted fighter sweep and thus fire from close in and usually under the cockpit sill where even visual detection is hard. Heavy jamming can have a similar effect.

            Chain Saw is the method by which you run a relay system of shots by charging forward, loosing and falling back in constant series of salvo’d missile fire as variable F/A/E pole kinematic behaviors on closing threats. Evade the first and you may have no energy left for the second or third while your enemy fleetingly runs in and out of your own engagement envelope.

            Shooter:Illuminator, using the power of modern AESA radars this is a technical solution which allows one jet to provide track while scan or TWS multi-target guidance for everyone’s missiles from a greater distance than a group of radar-off jets fire from, much closer in. This again serves to deceive an enemy as to the nature of their exposure to threat and particularly how fast those shots are going to both transit the midcourse and still be going (NEZ) at terminal. Obviously, stealth helps a lot here since the close in shooters are otherwise still at risk to counterfire if a canny threat should he happen to randomly snake his ground track 90` to look for a close in threat to his flanks.

            All things being equal, you must always beat the arrow over the archer which means that NEZ is the driving consideration in BVR combat.

            A missile which has a 4G target evasion pursuit overmatch capability can be defeated at any range or altitude. A 6G pursuit overmatch depends a great deal on timing because most jets simply don’t have the 8-9G sustained capability at 20,000ft they do at sea level (thinner air = lost thrust + lost lift).

            So… as a generic set of figures:

            AIM-120A 15-17nm max range. 8-10nm NEZ. (FPole)

            AIM-120B 21-25nm RMax. 10-12nm NEZ. (FPole)

            AIM-120C-5 with 5″ motor extension: 27nm RMax. 15nm NEZ

            AIM-120D with 11″ ERAAM motor: 45nm RMax. 20nm NEZ

            All of which must be taken as static figures (no parent boosting) and assume a relatively cooperative target that doesn’t immediately turn and extend at launch.

            The problem with the F-35 is that, with it’s low thrust to weight ratio and restricted (by enemy IRST detection) A/B use, it has to come way too close (25nm), even with AIM-120D, as a purely subsonic shooter, to get certain kills. And at these firing distances it is one the verge of detection by any number of RWR/IRST/Radar sensors which may then -force- continued engagement of enemy counter shots.

            The low onboard missile count of the Lighting in particular is critical here because, even with shooter illuminator standoff guidance the jet’s pilot cannot engage in what is called ‘shoot-shoot-look’ tactics of firing more than one missile at each target (with a little lag) as insurance.

            Instead, he/she must use ‘shoot-look-shoot’ wherein they wait for full weapon flyout and impact before firing again on any leakers. They simply don’t have the weapon reserves that a six-shout F-22 does.

            Of course support numbers count but even where you have a four plane F-35 formation where all are carrying bombs, you have only 8 BVR shots.

            And that may not be enough to take down particularly capable threat intercept before they simply bull their way through the AMRAAM attrition and start dominating the trans-merge fight with superior aerodynamics.

            In this, it must also be remembered that, by 25nm, the AMRAAM motor light is itself bloom-visible on IRST (Infra Red Search Track = passive electro optical).

            Since the F-35 cannot employ A/B to boost it’s weapons without also becoming visible to enemy IRST, it is in a bit of a dilemma because, once those two shots are gone, it’s next weapon engagement capability redunds to a 5,000ft GAU-22 25mm cannon.

            There have been published reports of USAF generals with combat time in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom saying privately that they are very uncomfortable with the idea of taking only two long lance weapons into combat with only the bootknife as backup.

            Which is where Meteor comes in.

            Given that fire requires three basic elements: heat, fuel and oxygen, a rocket motor uses an integral oxidizer that reduces the amount of propellant volume dedicated to fuel by about 20-30%.

            Go with an oxy-weak propellant grain and use an external intake to suck ‘free’ atmospheric oxygen and you get that volume back as pure fuel.

            Which translates into longer or more powerful impulse period (Meteor can do either) to keep pushing the weapon without going to a reduce sustainer thrust or even coasting as AMRAAM does.

            You only need enough oxy-strong boost propellant to get the missile up to a speed where the ram effect can feed outside air through the motor. The resulting ramjet missile propulsion is thus known as HFDR or Hybrid Flow Ducted Rocket.

            If AMRAAM has an effective flight time of 120 seconds and a powered flight time of 60 seconds, most of that under a very weak sustainer mode, Meteor, a British ramjet missile has a flight time of 200 seconds of which anything up to 130 is powered (generic figures again).

            The difference in powered-all-they-way vs. boost-sustain-coast propulsion means that the missile holds it’s median speed for longer and can actually increase for terminals which both shortens overall flight time and makes the E-Pole a lot more lethal, farther out.

            And this helps a great deal because it means a stealth aircraft never has to come close to the detection threshold limit where enemy sensors can pick it up regardless.

            While, if the weapon misses anyway, you are far enough off to be able to decide whether it’s wise to continue to press the engagement or slink away to ambush another day. Perhaps most importantly, it achieves it’s impressive 80-100nm RMax, 40-50nm NEZ capability regardless of shooter boost factor.

            Meteor is not a perfect match to the Lightning II. It does not fit on the weapons bay door mount that the F-35 uses for AMRAAM and putting it in the main bomb well means taking away primary air to ground mission ordnance which is ‘why you are there’.

            And being a foreign weapon, it will of course be subject to ‘NIH’ or Not Invented Here protectionist discrimination by our defense industrial base and services.

            But it is really the only solution for making the F-35 even remotely survivable in a modern war condition against threats with superior aerodynamic performance of their own and ever increasing sensor capabilities to detect and engage it at longer and longer counter-pole distances. LO or no.

            One other thing.

            Once you get out past 50nm or so, the normal attenuation in signal returns as well as refresh intervals in covering a very much larger/longer PRF cycle of total scan volume generally mean that absolute VLO performance is not as critical and you may in fact be able to get away with having some externally mounted weapons.

            Not on their own (rails and pylons create drag as well as RCS flash issues) but in stealthy EWP pods which encapsulate them until the moment of launch.

            An F-35 with two EWP and internal bay carriage combined can mount either 16 GBU-53/B small diameter bombs and 6 AMRAAM/Meteor class missiles. Or 8 bombs and 10 missiles.

            Which would make it a competent player, even by today’s standards (Su-30 series carries 10 missiles, Eurofighter carries 8).

            CONCLUSION:

            The F-35 is a cruel joke of Polish Fighter Design that has been played sadistically on both taxpayer and armed forces alike. But by acknowledging it’s limitations we may yet gain in terms of useful mission capability (at yet more added weapon integration cost$).

            It’s just a matter of acknowledging the threat bias (S2A is actually far more statistically dangerous on a historical basis) and mixing and matching ordnance as mission roles in acknowledging who has to die first to get through to the target while living to get home.

            At such tactical decision making, the highly trained U.S. fighter pilot communities have no equal or better. They simply must have working, competitive, weapons systems with which to maximize their skillset advantages.

          • The advantage to having manned aircraft is that a guy or gal behind the stick can think for themselves.

          • Lop_Eared_Galoot

            Michael,

            Not really. The book _The Ace Factor_ explains that Situational Awareness is the number one driver in terms of whether a fighter pilot is the hunter or the victim in combat, with statistical proof showing that in something like 85% of all shoot downs, the pilot was unaware he was being threatened before it was too late to avoid the shot.

            Where SA in fighter combat comes down to the ability to ‘take in at a glance’ the total surroundings as a wide-pipe of streaming visual data and _hold_ that data, properly sorted for time and relevance, without ‘dropping’ or ‘skipping’ entire observe-orient-decision-action sequences as what-to-do-about-it exploitation; the human can simply not make a good decision if either his biology prevents him from taking in the data or his stress levels only allow him to react to the most lethal danger while ten other ‘good enough’ shots home in.

            As an example of the former, nose-on, a MiG-21 at 2 miles is smaller than a drop of water on the canopy. A human pilot cannot see it further than this unless it flat-plates the airframe with maneuvering. An SA-IRST like the AAQ-37 EODAS, using IR focal plane imagers scattered around the airframe, can see that same target out to 15nm or more.

            A human pilot also cannot turn his head to look over his shoulder at more than about 6-7G so even if he -could- see as far as a mechanical visionics system, he wouldn’t be able to gimble his field of regard beyond the set point he put it in before he cranked on the G’s.

            A drone that can see and classify targets at greater distances can also pass that data along as coordinate datums (He’s here, do you see the same guy or a different/more guys?) to all friendly units in the immediate vicinity they will add it’s data to their own as if they had seen it themselves. Allowing all elements of a force to achieve high levels of cohesive maneuver and attack as sorted allocations of weapons to threats.

            A human can do the same thing, using the same datalink technology but the point is that if the human doesn’t have the datalink technology (because of cyberattack or jamming messing up his comms) then his next-best degraded response is no better or worse than a UCAVs because without the datalink messaging, he is limited to the same immediate area around his aircraft that his onboard systems can report to him about.
            He cannot hand off targets or ask for help.

            And the human eye’s maximum detection range as well as global-search capability is just too small to make a difference in a world dominated by multiple overlapping S2A and A2A threats.

            Point Blank: as soon as you give man the same systems as the machine visionics and datalink which a UCAV must have as baseline to retain his SA effectiveness, you prove that he is no better than the drone is and in some ways is worse.

            Because the drone can sort and store more threat data than he can, it’s ‘SA’ doesn’t suffer from pucker factor as panic or saturation and it’s G-loading capability is far higher while maintaining constant, 360` global lookout, scanning for more threats or targets.

            As much as I like discussing this subject, perhaps this is not the most pertinent of topics for this thread?

    • Bossman

      You’re not making any sense. What exactly are you talking about? Replacing human workers with robots? Why?

      • Lop_Eared_Galoot

        Bossman,

        >>
        Replacing human workers with robots? Why?
        >>

        Lots of reasons.

        First off, let’s make a distinction so that I’m sure we’re both on the same page. Automan or Automation In Manufacturing, while it may employ robotic armatures at various work stations on an assembly line, is not the same as an anthropoid robot which looks and functions in a biomechanically similar manner as we do.

        You cannot take a multiton automan robot to a peach tree orchard and instruct it to pick away, all day. It lacks the mobility as onboard power to be useful outside a stationary engineering supported capacity.

        Now, you still need to switch to automan for the simple reason that it’s the only way to compete with the Asian, Mexican and probably soon African slave labor markets in sourcing cheap consumer goods on a ‘how low can you go’ level of nothing below free means anything relief from union wage scales.

        We actually tried this in the early 1980s with the ‘dark factory’ concept and both the technology level and the union labor screamers kept it from happening. Today there is no choice however as the thermodynamic efficiencies losses inherent to say…

        Oil from Saudi

        Refined to plastic in Malaysia

        Gross Fabricated into billet stamped disks in Southern China

        CD/DVD final burn and packaging in Northern China

        Longshoreman Loading in Shanghai to Seattle container ship transfer to trucks.

        Distribution to Stores or Mail Order Warehouses in CONUS

        Has created a condition where nominally ‘cheap’ products are in fact more expensive than they used to be because you are paying FOREIGN workers for each one of the above steps rather than lump-summing the entire effort into U.S. jobs.
        When the USD collapses due to overeasing as inflationary devaluation on the home as international markets (we are printing money to pay other countries to sell us their stuff, in the process losing all value in the currency as the business base leaves our shores), we will no longer be able to support such scalar thermodynamic inefficiencies as indeed, we will no longer be able to buy manufactured goods from overseas, _period_.

        At which point it doesn’t make sense to start up another inefficient CONUS based system of 15-20 dollar an hour blue collar wages if the dollar won’t buy a loaf of bread for the amount of money you used to pay for the refrigerator to put it in.

        And why would you -want- to do this kind of work if it destroys your mind as your body over a 10-20 year period, leaving you a cripple at 50 and dead by 60, long before you can retire in the modern world?

        Centrist-Distributionist capitalism (money in the middle, slave manufacturing out in the boondocks, control over market value distribution of goods inbetween) only works because it pays the mega wealthy for ownership of the /process/, as Company Logo, by which every inefficiency step added to the consumer good delivery chain from the manufacturer to the market equates to a penny paid to them as returns on their shares of stock.

        That is how the rich get rich, by owning the work product of others which they contribute NOTHING to but a piece of paper saying they own the patent.

        It thus pays them to -seek- inefficiency as ‘creation of jobs’ overseas because each job gives them money for owning yet another new startup Company.

        And again, I ask: why do you want to continue that paying into that system by reestablishing a U.S. industrial base which is non-competitive with the slave labor (50 cents on the hour) systems of the East?

        It makes no sense to be like what we despise to further enrichen those who, already rich, have so badly manipulated us into monumental national debt service status as is.

        It is _evil_.

        And that is why automan wins because it gives the rich nothing from the backs of men who are not dependent on a job as business which the rich own the majority profits from to buy a minimum amount of food and shelter, just to keep going back to work. The industrial base can be nationalized and it’s production streamlined to provide, effectively (sans material costs) _free goods_. To those who will support the society that provides them.

        Now. What about android robots?

        Well, first, because they are complimentary to the automan in providing the potential of teleooperated waldo presense to select SMEs wherever they are needed.

        Even being expert system driven with huge databases of programmed knowledge that doesn’t perish with ageout or make mistakes based on mis-remembered technical specs as safety rules, robots are still going to need a lot of hand holding, at least in the early generations, by human interpretative understanding.

        And this will be critical for maintaining the automan systems as they stand up for, as we discovered in the 1980s when we first tried it, there simply isn’t enough engineering expertise to keep these complex systems running on a factory by factory on-site basis.

        A humanoid robot doesn’t face this problem as it can use it’s eyes to show the doctoral level engineers what is wrong and then act as on-site extensions of their expertise, even when they are thousands of miles away. Just like opening a chat dialogue with tech support for your computer lets them look at buggy software and do various degrees of repair.

        The difference being that, foot-mobile as we are, an android robot can also crawl around automan robotic armatures while using tools and climbing ladders and turning door knobs within an existing, human-centric work environment.

        Outside the factory, we have a different set of conditions. Namely, when the economy collapses and literally no one will take our money as our debt chits anymore, we are going to be in a situation where a lot of people, white as well as black and brown, will be either physically or mentally unprepared to go to work in the fields to earn their daily meals as we struggle to set up a new currency as state.

        We’re talking tens of millions of potentially aggressively hungry people.

        So many in fact that even if they -would- work, it would be hard to bring them to the food or the food to them (and yes, I know there are other services they could do but this is a basic outline of an anarchic free falling societal condition so walk it through with me…) to do the work.

        Stoop labor is hard labor. It burns people out.

        At which point, given the social costs of country wide insurrection as food rioting where _hundreds_ of millions may be at risk to murder or worse, it may be wiser to tell all the layabots to stay on the sofa, keep watching their cable and write them off as contributors to social enablement. Because you’ll keep the EBT cards charged.

        This, btw. is why I am so adamant about forming a Separatist ethno state movement because we can effectively partition off the functional fraction of useless eaters to an ‘inside our race = doable, outside our race = shootable’ genetic restrictor on the basis of future generations contributions as well.

        Alright, so we have can-doers and refusers and no way to encourage the former while working some shaming magic on the latter in an economically crippled society. Where the doers are making 12-20,000 new-dollars per household instead of the 80K to 100K old-dollars they were used to, before the crash, what do we do to make the workers stay true to the social contract in feeding everyone under conditions where a new dollar is worth maybe 25% of what it used to be as purchasing power?

        We give them robotic slaves and social credits.

        Robots are not animate, they don’t need true AI enablement to that level.

        Press the off switch and they should lose all memory of what came before. But they are more than tools because they in fact can -recognize- ‘the noun’ and increasingly put it to a ‘verb’ based use in a limited ontological understanding. Thus we have to broach new ideas of what a slave is and why societies depend on economic class stratificaiton as the right to get something for less than what it’s worth to the individual in understanding what a slave really is.

        Beyond the philosophic sea change, what this means is that if you, a work supervisor with 5 robots, log on to a national work database on a daily basis, you can always find a service job for which your configurable bots are optimized and which pays you for their _group_ work.

        Be that painting a house, picking tomatoes or filling in potholes. Even brain surgery may be something robots do better, with repetitive precision and less locomotor damage to their bodies, because at single-task specializations robots are superior -morphologically- from the deep topologic ontology (mapping out the shape of and understanding the purpose of our relative position in the universe) wise brains we use to conceptually interact with the world.

        We want to encourage wisdom and discourage gross motor response as we move away from being bipedal animals and towards something…next.
        But we still need to eat. And we still need group labor synergies to keep society functioning. And a man with five robots can give a better days work by supervising them than he can being subordinate along with five other men doing the same tasks as the robots are stronger, more endurant and more precise.
        Not least in this is the fact that, if you free those five men to each command five robots you now have /30/ workers total and yet we are still only paying those five men so we can turn the robotic labor savings into more work product, for free.

        We can also make android robots a lot faster than we can raise human laborers which means we are not tempted to breed more heavily to make ourselves richer.

        Free labor is also important because, while their discretionary wages will remain low, a man or woman who undertakes to support all of society on the Atlas like shoulders of a robotic workforce, will -also- be eligible for Social Credits.

        These are basically a point system for advancement within a queue for privileges the layabouts are simply never eligible to receive.

        Like a car.

        A house.

        And the right to give your genes to a future the non-workers are opting out of.

        Given the robots can work 24:7:365 with limited out of service periods for upgrade and maintenance, by sharing robots work product among several heads of household as service providers, you can rapidly earn eliteness to replace the wealthy class who will have hopefuly long since fled a ruined America for ‘greener’ climes as so-called citizens of the world.

        Rapidly as in months not decades of prepaid mortgage layoff.

        And because your new home will ALSO be built, at low or no labor cost, by robots, it can be rather…generously, designed. As say sitting on an acre or two of land with 6,000 square feet of floor space if you wish it.

        People should not fear robots. They are what will free us from those who would vamp our existence while still maintaining our superiority of conceptual /understanding/ of work problems inherent to acting as supervisors for machine labor.

        And so they will return to us the dignity of achievement through direct work (even if it’s just driving the ‘bots to the jobsite and cleaning/repairing/recharging them after the work day is done) rather than owning someone else’ best efforts like the present day wealth class parasitically does.

        Indeed, the reason wealthy people want an influx of constant poverty to white, western, civilization is because Capitalism as it is now expressed rather than /Entrepreneurialism/ as it should be, has run out of room at the top.

        And so they desperately need to dilute the white work ethic by constantly increasing the burden under which we labor to support an endles horde` of the poor-as-stupid breeder populations of the planet.

        Did we accept robotics as a semi-socialist approach to achieved privilege (Social Credits are functionally off the economic books because the resources as medical supplies or lumber or automobile chassis are mass purchased at a government level of **bartered** international trade) then we could BREAK this system of wealth restricted resource allocations, completely.

        At which point, the wealthy would be no better than the impoverished non-workers when it came time to own what they built for themselves.

        It’s not a perfect system. But it’s the only way I can see to get whites to buy-in on a breakaway ethnostate that is _for us_, a land of freedom from Other Population needs. And it could lead to a world where the average individual dignity of life was also very much greater than it is today.

        • Bossman

          Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I still did not understand much of it.

          • Lop_Eared_Galoot

            Bossman,
            I want to make ordinary whites rich in a world where we are numerically inferior to the high TFR Other Populations without being dependent on them.
            We cannot do this while we are chained to living wage slave menial labor for everything from fast food to construction industry maintenance of our social infrastructure, because they take far more than they give (100 billion dollars per year in social welfare subsidies and 30 billion in remittances back home leaving our economy for 20 billion in economic contribution to the GDP).
            Since even whites are not all equally gifted with high operative IQs and since the manual labor still has to get done, I am suggesting that robots be the replacement for Hispanic and Black menial labor.
            With whites acting as repairmen and supervisors to the robotic force in trade for having Social Credit (lousy job, done well) access to decent homes and cars and paid-for childbearing privileges that they would otherwise have to wait _years_ to be able to afford.
            It won’t be money perse`. But it will be material wealth that you can pass on to your descendants as an inheritance which will raise their ability to move up the ladder as things like genomic intervention makes them beautiful and wise and gifted, far beyond anything we dream of for ourselves, today.

  • Irishgirl

    If my wages go any lower, I’ll be paying my employer for the privilege of working.

  • Bossman

    American employers are complaining that they cannot get the educated workers that they need in certain sectors. I’m sure that the legislators are listening to the employers.

  • JohnEngelman

    H-1b workers are the reason why despite twenty years of computer programming experience my computer career is dead.

    • Jefferson

      I am sorry to hear about that, my condolences. Indians are like the Mexicans of the tech world.

      Tech companies prefer to hire them over Whites because Indians will work for a lower salary than Whites. Indians will work for dirt cheap by Google, Yahoo, Youtube, Linkedin, etc standards.

      • Bossman

        Why hire someone for 60k a year when the work can be done for 15 k per year. From what I hear, those Indians don’t even have to set foot on US soil. They can do it in real time while sitting in a shed on the other side of the world.

        • JohnEngelman

          Why should I want employers to be able to hire someone in India for $15,000 a year? I would rather do the work for $60,000 dollars a year. So would most educated Americans.

          The U.S. economy increasingly benefits capital at the expense of labor. Easing restrictions on immigration will increase that. That is what this thread is about.

    • Bossman

      Not even Javascript programming? Become an artist and then sell yourself as a web designer.

      • JohnEngelman

        Employers do not care about courses I have taken. They want paid experience. They also want someone who is currently doing the work they are hiring for.

        • If you have been through US basic training, you could always get some work as a mercenary. I did that once, even without basic. Like going to federal prison, it helped make a man out of me.

  • Have you read anything about HIMAT? This was unmanned, on purpose, because removing a human pilot allows tighter turns.

    As for hypersonics, why not just build project Thor? A solid projectile will still defeat any missile silo hardening if one allws it to de-orbit onto the target. Jerry Pournelle wrote quite a lot about this.