4 ms·

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

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.

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.