'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
Clean energy, we were told, would save us. Funded by generous government subsidies, it would spur innovation and create untold jobs, restructuring the economy for the better.
That didn't happen.
Seattle just reported that the city has only 14 new jobs from a $20 million grant to invest in weatherization.
And the New York Times reports about a solar panel company in California that was supposed to help increase the number of green jobs in one city five fold -- up to 25,000. Of course, that's hard to do when your manufacturing plant is in China and you only employ 90 people. In fact, green job employment fell in the area.
Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development.
The weatherization program was initially delayed for seven months while the federal Department of Labor determined prevailing wage standards for the industry. Even after that issue was resolved, the program never really caught on as homeowners balked at the upfront costs.
With green jobs such an utter failure (Green Jobs Czar Van Jones himself is quoted saying he's 'frustrated'), do you think that President Obama's bold and mysterious job plans next month will mention them at all? Or do you think, as I do, that he'll actually propose increasing taxpayer funding of these schemes?
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
I think there are two possibilities with Obama. He might double down and continue the rhetoric without disclosing the results. The other is that we'll never hear about "green jobs" again from him.
I think it will be the former. He's running out of things to talk about. If he drops green jobs, the only subjects left will be (1) taxes on the rich and owners of jets so they pay their "fair share" (2) how he has things a lot rougher than Lincoln.
The whole green jobs scam is another example of how government cannot create real jobs, even when it subsidizes them. The market is an amazing thing: it really does tell entrepreneurs when the time is right to do something. To use a sports metaphor: economic reality refuses to take a head fake.
Edited on Aug 19, 2011 at 6:46amJun '10
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
If you're trying to encourage people to make huge up-front investments in green technology, then you probably shouldn't do everything you can to destabilize the economy at the same time. Because, when the economy finally grinds to a complete halt, then non-green energy will be really cheap too.
Jul '11
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
duplicate post
Edited on Aug 19, 2011 at 7:19amJul '11
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
I'm with you. Recall that unintentionally hilarious "Contract For the American Dream" video put out by Van Jones' organization (linked to here by Ricochet member barbara lydick)? Front and center was the call for more Green Jobs and even though Jones was ousted, you can be sure that they're still reading from the same playbook. The public hasn't caught on that this is pure snake oil. And for good measure it will be marketed as patriotic: Obama's brave attempt to rejuvenate America and "Win the Future" from those Chinese, who are, at this very moment, planning to corner the market on these miraculous technologies.
Of course, with this administration, you'll never go broke by betting that they'll propose increased spending on virtually anything.
Jul '11
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
duplicate post
Edited on Aug 19, 2011 at 7:20amApr '11
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
It doesn't matter what Obama says in Sept. The Dem strategy is not to actually have a jobs program or deficit reduction. Their strategy now is to move away from the "I inherited this mess from Bush" narrative to the fresher "the Tea Party hijacked GOP is stopping all these great ideas from helping you" message. This is their war cry as they go into the '12 election. Every Dem talking head I've heard the last week has repeated this mantra. They hope that the public at large doesn't pay attention to the details. That when the "plan" comes out, the facts and stats won't matter because the GOP will not vote for it and can therefore be demonized as obstrucionist, partisan and treasonous.
Apr '11
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
Working as an electrical designer in an engineering firm, I could have seen the collapse of the solar market for some time. There never was demand, and reports touting solar as a successful green jobs program was more wishful thinking than actual news.
The primary client for almost all solar in the designs I've worked on in the past four years has been federal, state, and local government projects. Private firms look at the cost of installing solar, and find the return on investment no where near enough. It takes a couple decades for solar to pay for itself.
So not only has government been subsidizing the solar business, it has also been solar's biggest and almost its only customer.
Aug '10
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
"Green Jobs" are a perfect example of how liberals think about the economy. You can understand the appeal (from their point of view): It hits the trifecta of liberal wish list items. It takes money taxed from the rich and funnels it down to community functionaries, who then hire workers at a 'living wage' from disadvantaged communities to provide weatherstripping and sealing to the houses of other poor people. So you've got wealth transfer, environmental policy, and job creation all wrapped up into one nice neat package that you can sell as a 'jobs' program and get independents on board. As political packaging, it's brilliant.
Of course, in the real world you can't start from the desired outcome and work backwards like that. Instead, you start with an identified demand, and then figure out if you can meet that demand while providing a positive return on your investment. That's the only way to create wealth and actually create jobs.
If you have to create demand for your product through subsidy, which these programs always require, your return on investment is negative, and ultimately you destroy jobs instead of creating them.
Apr '11
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
Dan Hanson: ...
Of course, in the real world you can't start from the desired outcome and work backwards like that. ... · Aug 19 at 12:53pm
This is essentially how many liberal "money making" plans work. You can see similar mindsets in municipal building projects such as office buildings and convention centers. The idea behind many of these projects is, "We'll build this office high-rise/convention center, and that will attract businesses. We'll make money!" When the results fail to meet expectations, frequently they end up renting to themselves. They then report they are doing business. They fail to report they subsidized to pay themselves.
It's very much a "Field of Dreams" mindset. "If we build it, people will buy."
Aug '10
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
Drivers of economic growth in our country's past have included oil, steel, transportation, information technology. Now, the way back to prosperity entails installing sticky rubber strips around doors and windows?
Aug '10
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
C. U. Douglas
This is essentially how many liberal "money making" plans work. You can see similar mindsets in municipal building projects such as office buildings and convention centers. The idea behind many of these projects is, "We'll build this office high-rise/convention center, and that will attract businesses. We'll make money!" When the results fail to meet expectations, frequently they end up renting to themselves. They then report they are doing business. They fail to report they subsidized to pay themselves.
It's very much a "Field of Dreams" mindset. "If we build it, people will buy." · Aug 19 at 1:07pm
I've seen this referred to as 'cargo cult economics'. "Hey, that city over there is successful, and they have a convention center that businesses come to all the time. We're not so successful, so if we build a convention center we can be successful too!"
Of course, they have cause and effect backwards. The successful convention center is a result of the other policies which made the city attractive to business. Raising taxes to build a convention center when you're losing businesses to high taxes in the first place is crazy.
Sep '10
Re: 'Green Jobs' An Undisputed Failure
This makes me sad. I don't know what else to say.