5 ms·

I feel point 2 is a bit misleading. That solar count includes all solar manufacturing jobs. Utility companies don't engage in manufacturing, so the comparison d

I feel point 2 is a bit misleading. That solar count includes all solar manufacturing jobs. Utility companies don't engage in manufacturing, so the comparison doesn't really seem to have any utility, if you'll pardon the horrible pun. If you included all coal, natural gas, oil, and other non-renewable equipment manufacturing, I'm positive they'd beat solar by quite a margin.

savanaly 11y ago
Also, requiring jobs is a downside of something, not an upside. But it seemed like he was trying to plug solar by bragging about how many jobs it would create.
- lumberjack 11y ago
  It's a cost that the businesses and consumers have to deal with but it is not necessarily a cost for society at large.
  - savanaly 11y ago
    It is a cost for society at large. Any workers that are employed in solar are not employed in some other job, so we have to be losing out in production somewhere if we switch our power generation from something that requires fewer workers to something that requires more. Even if the extra workers required to make solar work came exclusively from the ranks of the unemployed or retired, we are still losing the leisure time they had previously been enjoying, which is a production of sorts.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      Most of the non-tech unemployed people I know would happily trade their leisure time for a paycheck.
- stellar678 11y ago
  If you engage in any business that requires or benefits from a working relationship with the political system, then employing lots of people is, without a doubt, a positive aspect of your business.
  - savanaly 11y ago
    Good point. I didn't consider that he might have just been speaking about the profitability of his own sector, I had assumed he meant that we as a society should look kindly on solar power for the reason that it employs a lot of people.
- netcan 11y ago
  Downside to whom?
  - jerf 11y ago
    A "job" is when a human being is required to insert their valuable resources of time and talent to produce further valuable resources, some of which go to the human being (lest they starve), some of which go to a capital owner, and some of which go to society at large. Broadly speaking, when you get the same benefits but are not draining a human being's time and talent in the process, society wins. The question of how to distribute those wins may be tricky, but it's the type of problem that, broadly speaking, is good to have. Like when you unexpectedly receive a cash bonus, and now you have the probem of paying taxes on it... yes, it's a problem, but it's a good problem to have. And given that I've heard people complain about getting money because then they'll have to pay taxes, as if that causes the whole thing to net negative (it's silly when I say it baldly, of course, but I've heard this so often it's clearly a common cognitive template), it's really quite like that situation. Let's not be so worried about the possibility that someday wealth may be unequally distributed that we prevent it from being created in the first place.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    To the society as a whole. To kind of amplify jerf's comment, think in terms of a society "spending" people, rather than "employing" people. You (the society) only have so many people; if you don't have to spend them on solar, you can spend them on other worthwhile things.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  Requiring jobs is not an upside or downside, it is simply a matter of relative expense. If it is cheaper to run the business by hiring people, people will be hired. If it is cheaper to run the business by buying machines, machines will be bought. One is not better or worse than the other.

savanaly 11y ago

Also, requiring jobs is a downside of something, not an upside. But it seemed like he was trying to plug solar by bragging about how many jobs it would create.

lumberjack 11y ago
It's a cost that the businesses and consumers have to deal with but it is not necessarily a cost for society at large.
- savanaly 11y ago
  It is a cost for society at large. Any workers that are employed in solar are not employed in some other job, so we have to be losing out in production somewhere if we switch our power generation from something that requires fewer workers to something that requires more. Even if the extra workers required to make solar work came exclusively from the ranks of the unemployed or retired, we are still losing the leisure time they had previously been enjoying, which is a production of sorts.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Most of the non-tech unemployed people I know would happily trade their leisure time for a paycheck.
stellar678 11y ago
If you engage in any business that requires or benefits from a working relationship with the political system, then employing lots of people is, without a doubt, a positive aspect of your business.
- savanaly 11y ago
  Good point. I didn't consider that he might have just been speaking about the profitability of his own sector, I had assumed he meant that we as a society should look kindly on solar power for the reason that it employs a lot of people.
netcan 11y ago
Downside to whom?
- jerf 11y ago
  A "job" is when a human being is required to insert their valuable resources of time and talent to produce further valuable resources, some of which go to the human being (lest they starve), some of which go to a capital owner, and some of which go to society at large. Broadly speaking, when you get the same benefits but are not draining a human being's time and talent in the process, society wins. The question of how to distribute those wins may be tricky, but it's the type of problem that, broadly speaking, is good to have. Like when you unexpectedly receive a cash bonus, and now you have the probem of paying taxes on it... yes, it's a problem, but it's a good problem to have. And given that I've heard people complain about getting money because then they'll have to pay taxes, as if that causes the whole thing to net negative (it's silly when I say it baldly, of course, but I've heard this so often it's clearly a common cognitive template), it's really quite like that situation. Let's not be so worried about the possibility that someday wealth may be unequally distributed that we prevent it from being created in the first place.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  To the society as a whole. To kind of amplify jerf's comment, think in terms of a society "spending" people, rather than "employing" people. You (the society) only have so many people; if you don't have to spend them on solar, you can spend them on other worthwhile things.
snowwrestler 11y ago
Requiring jobs is not an upside or downside, it is simply a matter of relative expense. If it is cheaper to run the business by hiring people, people will be hired. If it is cheaper to run the business by buying machines, machines will be bought. One is not better or worse than the other.