4 ms·

Creating jobs is easy: Spend a lot of money and/or make it more effortful to produce things. In either case, workers will be doing more of one thing and less of

Creating jobs is easy: Spend a lot of money and/or make it more effortful to produce things. In either case, workers will be doing more of one thing and less of another. In this case, more workers are spending more time in "Energy," but this comes at the cost of all the other things those workers might be doing instead. This may or may not be a net-win, but unless we account for the reduced production in other areas, we will delude ourselves about the benefits of these energy jobs. We will be motivated to keep "creating jobs" simply by shifting workers from one task to another, and then another, regardless of whether those new tasks are actually more valuable to society than the ones they had been doing. We will put in place rules that make production more effortful, because this creates jobs in that field, despite the fact that we will have less overall stuff.

whats_a_quasar 3y ago
I don't think that's how labor markets function in the U.S. at the moment, and I think it's an odd critique to make of green energy projects in particular. Not all labor creates the same amount of wealth, and there isn't a fixed demand for skilled labor. Lots of energy construction projects increases the demand for skilled labor, which pulls people out of unskilled labor or service jobs. Greater labor demand in general means everyone wins - companies have projects that they're getting built, workers have negotiating power and wage growth, and wealth is being created in the form of energy infrastructure.
- Nifty3929 3y ago
  I did not intend to critique energy jobs or projects in particular - I meant to highlight that shuffling people from one task to another is not (necessarily) productive overall, but it's easy to delude ourselves. We see the increased productivity concentrated in one area/industry, but don't see the decreased productivity diffused throughout the rest of the economy. This may still be a net win, but you have to consider both sides. As far as moving people from less-skilled to more-skilled jobs - the real question is which one is more valuable for society. There might be plenty of low-skill jobs that are valuable, and high-skill ones that aren't. Also, we have to be careful about what we consider "skill." Would you say waiting tables is low-skill? A waiter may beg to differ... What are these "low-skill" jobs that people are giving up in order to move into which "high-skill" jobs in energy? Or is it just about whether someone has to wear a blouse or button-up shirt and slacks and go to an office? The important thing is that people should move from lower-value jobs to higher-value ones. But people do not get a direct signal of value, only of pay. So we can pay people more to do a job, and they will do it. But that does not mean it is more valuable overall.
hcurtiss 3y ago
Precisely. Enter Bastiat.
- jmoak3 3y ago
  I wonder what he would have to say on our current world. Here are some stats I find interesting from America in particular. Federal Government Current Receipts https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGRECPT https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGRECPT Personal current transfer receipts: Government social benefits to persons: Medicare https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W824RC1 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W824RC1 Personal current transfer receipts: Government social benefits to persons: Social security https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W823RC1 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W823RC1 It appears at the moment that more spending on everything is bipartisan, and universally loved. Until it breaks: Federal government current expenditures: Interest payments/Federal government current tax receipts https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=sOG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=sOG Some food for thought: https://www.americas-capital.com/blog/we-will-see-the-return-of-capital-investment-on-a-massive-scale https://www.americas-capital.com/blog/we-will-see-the-return...
  - Nifty3929 3y ago
    Yep - everyone wants money to be spent. But few consider how that money spent contributes to overall productivity. One cannot live in money or eat money. If we want things, they have to be produced by workers. Does spending money increase overall production? Maybe, but I rarely hear anybody address that question. Does hiring people into government roles end up producing consumer goods, factories, or productivity-enhancing research? This is an unasked question.

whats_a_quasar 3y ago

I don't think that's how labor markets function in the U.S. at the moment, and I think it's an odd critique to make of green energy projects in particular. Not all labor creates the same amount of wealth, and there isn't a fixed demand for skilled labor. Lots of energy construction projects increases the demand for skilled labor, which pulls people out of unskilled labor or service jobs. Greater labor demand in general means everyone wins - companies have projects that they're getting built, workers have negotiating power and wage growth, and wealth is being created in the form of energy infrastructure.

Nifty3929 3y ago
I did not intend to critique energy jobs or projects in particular - I meant to highlight that shuffling people from one task to another is not (necessarily) productive overall, but it's easy to delude ourselves. We see the increased productivity concentrated in one area/industry, but don't see the decreased productivity diffused throughout the rest of the economy. This may still be a net win, but you have to consider both sides. As far as moving people from less-skilled to more-skilled jobs - the real question is which one is more valuable for society. There might be plenty of low-skill jobs that are valuable, and high-skill ones that aren't. Also, we have to be careful about what we consider "skill." Would you say waiting tables is low-skill? A waiter may beg to differ... What are these "low-skill" jobs that people are giving up in order to move into which "high-skill" jobs in energy? Or is it just about whether someone has to wear a blouse or button-up shirt and slacks and go to an office? The important thing is that people should move from lower-value jobs to higher-value ones. But people do not get a direct signal of value, only of pay. So we can pay people more to do a job, and they will do it. But that does not mean it is more valuable overall.

hcurtiss 3y ago

Precisely. Enter Bastiat.

jmoak3 3y ago
I wonder what he would have to say on our current world. Here are some stats I find interesting from America in particular. Federal Government Current Receipts https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGRECPT https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGRECPT Personal current transfer receipts: Government social benefits to persons: Medicare https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W824RC1 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W824RC1 Personal current transfer receipts: Government social benefits to persons: Social security https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W823RC1 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W823RC1 It appears at the moment that more spending on everything is bipartisan, and universally loved. Until it breaks: Federal government current expenditures: Interest payments/Federal government current tax receipts https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=sOG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=sOG Some food for thought: https://www.americas-capital.com/blog/we-will-see-the-return-of-capital-investment-on-a-massive-scale https://www.americas-capital.com/blog/we-will-see-the-return...
- Nifty3929 3y ago
  Yep - everyone wants money to be spent. But few consider how that money spent contributes to overall productivity. One cannot live in money or eat money. If we want things, they have to be produced by workers. Does spending money increase overall production? Maybe, but I rarely hear anybody address that question. Does hiring people into government roles end up producing consumer goods, factories, or productivity-enhancing research? This is an unasked question.