Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

by SamCogar Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:16 am

AS the Washington Post reported recently, "President Obama is looking again to convince voters that the billions of dollars he has pumped into embryonic clean-energy firms will build a better economy . . . ."

"When the president and Congress talk about green jobs, they are talking about created via federal tax breaks, subsidies or outright mandates," Lieberman said. "For example, wind- and solar-generated electricity already enjoys subsidies nearly 50 times higher per unit of energy output than ordinary coal and 100 times higher than natural gas."

Because subsidies siphon resources from other parts of the economy, they can actually cause joblessness.

"A study of alternative energy in Spain estimates that the cost of such subsidies for wind and solar prevents 2.2 such private-sector jobs for each green job created," Lieberman wrote. As of February, Spain's unemployment rate was 19 percent.

"In Denmark, each wind energy job has cost $90,000 to $140,000 in subsidies, which is more than the jobs pay," he said. "In Germany the figure is as high as $240,000. And the experience in Spain, Denmark and Germany is that most of the green jobs created are temporary ones."

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorials/201007140862

by ziggy Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:48 pm

And to take the jobs issue even further, if every electricity user hired round-the-clock teams of people to turn generators by hand to produce the electrical power used, 100 percent of able-bodied people would be employed in the power generation industry alone. So if jobs is the issue, then shut down all those expensive fuel burning boiler powered generators and hire people to hand-crank those power generators. In the words of Ross Perot, "Problem solved; next question".

by **Stephanie** Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:51 pm

That's ridiculous, Ziggy.

You just over-played your hand, good buddy.

You don't care about the standard of living of anyone. You believe in BIG GOVERNMENT control of everything and what's worse, you trust the government to be fair and equitable. Should my children drop out of college to produce electricity? Who will produce the prescription medications you require? Who will dispense them? Who will write you the script?

I do think you may have found an interesting solution to America's welfare problem. Handcrank electricity for benefits. I kind of like that.

by ziggy Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:54 pm

Stephanie wrote:That's ridiculous, Ziggy.

You just over-played your hand, good buddy.

Yeah, but Sam started it! I was just helping him along!

You don't care about the standard of living of anyone.

I care about the quality of life of everyone.

You believe in BIG GOVERNMENT control of everything .................

No, I don't.

................ and what's worse, you trust the government to be fair and equitable.

No, I don't. Government as well as corporations are staffed by people whose motives are usually less than "fair and equitable".

Should my children drop out of college to produce electricity? Who will produce the prescription medications you require? Who will dispense them? Who will write you the script?

Let the law of supply and demand settle all that. If there are more people producing medications, then the supply of generator crankers will be less, and those that do will be able to command a higher wage.

I do think you may have found an interesting solution to America's welfare problem. Handcrank electricity for benefits. I kind of like that.

Duhh. Isn't that what Sam's post was about- jobs in the power industry? Who better to have those jobs than people who are already unemployed?

by **Stephanie** Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:52 pm

You mean, you're actually willing to force welfare receipients to work for their benefits?

by ziggy Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:59 pm

I don't think we can "force" anyone to work. But if more jobs were available than the current managed economy that demands that unemployment level be a minimum of five percent or more allows, that there would be more jobs for welfare receipients and anyone else.

by SamCogar Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:24 am

ziggy wrote: Yeah, but Sam started it! I was just helping him along!

Why is it you always blame someone else for your own blunders, ignorance and stupidity?

Because its the "troughfeeder's way of getting by with being dueless and non-productive", ...... right.

by **Stephanie** Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:22 am

Funny that, isn't it? The government can't "force" anyone to work, but they can steal the money of those who do work to feed, house, and provide medical care, even cell phones, for those who won't.

by ziggy Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:40 pm

SamCogar wrote:
ziggy wrote: Yeah, but Sam started it! I was just helping him along!

Why is it you always blame someone else for your own blunders, ignorance and stupidity?

Because its the "troughfeeder's way of getting by with being dueless and non-productive", ...... right.

Some poeple blame their blunders, ignorance and stupidity on the Devil. I blame SamCogar. It's all the same, only different, ......... right..

by Aaron Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:07 pm

I'm curious as to what your response is to Stephanie's last post Ziggy.

by **Stephanie** Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:03 pm

wb, Aaron

by ziggy Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:31 am

Aaron wrote:I'm curious as to what your response is to Stephanie's last post Ziggy.

Again, if more jobs were available than the current managed economy that demands an unemployment level of five percent or more allows, that there would be more jobs for welfare receipients and anyone else.

by Aaron Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:03 pm

You didn't address Stephanie's point. When unemployment was 5% the circumstances Stephanie described still existed. Why do you suppose that is? Or are you saying that there can be such a thing as 100% employment? I realize a straight answer is a painful thing for you Ziggy but at least try.

by ziggy Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:38 am

I gave a straight anbswer. You just don't like my answer.

Or are you saying that there can be such a thing as 100% employment?

When anything less than 5 percent unemployment is considered "full employment", and the economy is managed to maintin at or near 5 percent unemployment, of course there can't be 100 percent employment. It isn't that the folks on welfare won't work; it is that the economic managers labor mightily to guarantee that there will not be employment for that 5 percent or so.

by Aaron Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:19 am

No, you didn't give a straight answer. You spouted the same tripe over again.

There's a reason 95% employment is considered full employment and that's because ~5% of the working force are pretty much worthless as was proven prior to this recession which coincidently started about the same time liberals regained control of the legislative branch.

When a patron walks into a fast food restaurant that is paying wages 20% or more above minimum wages and still begging for employees and the place looks like a pig sty and management can do very little or when a retail chain can't find enough employees to operate a cash register that does ALL the thinking, it's pretty evident to anyone without an agenda why 95% is considered full employment.

There’s a reason this country is in the condition it is and that is because too many others refuse to acknowledge the simple truth.

by ziggy Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:34 am

" .......................... it's pretty evident to anyone without an agenda .................... ".

Who is without an agenda of one kind or another?

by Aaron Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:06 am

I see you continue to ignore valid points that do not fit your agenda.

by Sponsored content

Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.

Re: Green Jobs mean higher unemployment.