Reply #11: What about GREEN jobs "that cannot be outsourced"? [View All]

After being briefed on new company policy for making products greener, I suggested this: If we really believed in green initiatives such as drastic reductions in CO2 emissions and lower consumption of natural resources, we should stop developing, manufacturing and selling products that nobody really needs. Of course, there are huge revenues, profit and taxes that flow from the creation and consumption of such goods, so the emphasis is on appearing green to score points and not alienating the market segments that might discriminate against us.

The current US money crunch has real teeth because our manufacturing capability has fled overseas - the idea that we can survive with just a service economy seems nonsensical to me: If I take in your washing and you take in my washing, there is no net gain in productivity or wealth creation – I might as well do my own washing and you might as well do yours, rather than paying each other the same amount for equivalent services.

We really do need to produce useful products that are valued by a world market or we will not make any headway. Yet, I see acceleration in the trend to outsource not only manufacturing, but more and more engineering jobs – the very people who would have been the customer base for products such as cameras and printers, are being laid off and can no longer afford to buy such goods.

Companies don’t think of their employees as their customers, but when you pool all goods made in the US, the employees are the customers. Get rid of one and you are getting rid of the other. Outsourcing all engineering and manufacturing may allow US companies to lower product costs on the short term, but they are collectively killing a large segment of their customer base in the long term.

Perhaps green jobs will help stimulate the economy. Not by paying an army of people to spend research dollars, but by actually producing useful products that have a greater value on the world market than they cost to produce.

I predict that green will catalyze the next investment bubble, and that money will seem to be created out of thin air in a flurry of pyramid schemes, just like the dot.com stocks did in the nineties and then housing market after that. However, until I see a wind turbine factory powered by wind turbines, I predict green industries will eventually crash like all pyramid schemes must.

Yes, you can get a tax rebate for a hybrid car and solar panels, but only because someone else is paying for it. If we all bought hybrids and solar panels we will have to pay the full cost ourselves and that doesn't look nearly as attractive.

If I sound completely down on green, I believe in efficiency and in appropriate application of technology. For instance, regenerative braking on hybrid city buses makes a lot of sense because such vehicles are heavy and make multiple stops that would ordinarily just waste fuel energy as heat in the brakes.

That said, I don’t understand why hybrid SUVs are allowed to use the highway commuter lane without passengers when a small car with higher MPG is not allowed the same privilege – I frown on green as a religion where hybrid or electric vehicles are badges of honor and everything else is “part of the problem”.

The emphasis has to return to manufacturing useful products in the US for the world market. Wealth cannot be created for all in a service economy, only redistributed. While certain connected individuals will benefit financially from green mandates, I don’t see green energy creation and consumption reducing the cost of living for the average person.