Tim Haab shows how absurd the claim that “investing in renewable energy will create jobs.”
That’s true. But somewhat absurd:
Where do new jobs come from?
If investment dollars are transfered from oil and gas to ethanol, then jobs will follow. It’s the same as trying to tell the difference between economic impacts and economic welfare. When a hurricane rips through the U.S. gulf coast, new jobs are created. Should we tout the benefits of hurricanes as a policy option to battle unemployment?
‘Conservation’ applies to a number of things. “Conservation of Energy” rings a bell; I also like “Conservation of Work.” In this case, I think “Conservation of Jobs” applies. Jobs are not “destroyed” and “created” so much as they are moved, from one industry to another, and from one location to another. It’s by all means possible to argue that outsourcing ‘permanently’ removes jobs from the economy, but other nations outsource to the US at the same time. The net result is negligible. Unemployment occurs, to a large extent, because these things – location and industry (skill set) – are “sticky.” They take time to change.
Certainly, investing heavily in renewable energy will create jobs. But will it create more jobs than the current energy industry? Will workers currently employed in the industry be able to transition over, or will they have to find other employment?
Post Revisions:
There are no revisions for this post.