On the definition of "bogus"

From the comments section:

And I don't take "bogus" to mean  "not a always appropriate."

Me:

Bogus means not genuine. The implication of the green jobs argument is bogus. For example,

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama proposed an economic plan that would create 5 million jobs in environmental industries. These so-called “green collar” jobs do, in fact, present the next frontier for U.S. manufacturing, says a new report from Duke University.

Highlighting the direct linkages between low-carbon technologies and U.S. jobs, Duke researchers say U.S. manufacturing is poised to grow in a low-carbon economy. Their report, “Manufacturing Climate Solutions,” provides a detailed look at the manufacturing jobs that already exist and would be created when the U.S. takes action to limit global-warming pollution. A copy of the study is available at http://www.cggc.duke.edu/environment/climatesolutions/.

The implication of this type of study is that environmental policy creates net positive green jobs. The jobs lost as a result of environmental policy are never mentioned.

Comments

[odograph]

There is a thing called "false generalization."

Even if I agreed (without looking) that this, or some other proposed program was "bogus" or "not genuine," I don't think I could extend that to an entire constellation.

With "green jobs are bogus" you are arguing the universal. ("[some] green jobs are bogus" would have had much less impact.)

[John Whitehead]

I'm not saying the green jobs aren't real, they are, and maybe offset in other sectors ... but the green jobs argument (not thinking about the offsetting costs) is bogus. That is the change in the GJAB quip that works for me.

[odograph]

I think we've cycled back again to whether jobs stimulus ever has merit. We've seen Thoma's argument that it does, at times, and your question about whether this is one of those times.

So again, is the universal justified? Even about the argument?

[John Whitehead]

Odo,

You misunderstand. Re-read the post. There is no macroeconomics involved.

[odograph]

Sigh.

You work hard to constrain "green jobs" to mean a certain thing, and that alone.

I think if you are going to be honest about "green jobs are bogus" you will have to accept that other people think other things when they hear the term.

[John Whitehead]

Odo,

Sigh.

From eBay:

Your item's title and description are your advertisement, an opportunity to both inform and excite buyers. Writing a good title and description will significantly increase your chances of your listing being found and sold.

[John Whitehead]

Odo,

You are happy to think whatever you like when you read the title. You could also try to focus more on the text than the title.

On second thought ... :-)

[odograph]

Your title has made waves, and prompted more comments than just mine. My only caution would be that notoriety is not exactly the same as fame.

[John Whitehead]

Odo,

I can assure you that I am not seeking fame. While I get a pat on the back or two from fellow economists (and the opposite from others), I've yet to receive a salary increase, high level government job, grant funding, great publication or plumb teaching assignment. In fact, my guess is that my academic career is a bit muted because of blogging.

The reason we started this blog was to educate the public about basic environmental economic principles (and to have some mid-career fun). Sometimes that is untidy for certain political and business agendas (we know that this happens when the comments meter goes crazy). But I think the world will be a better place if a bit more economic analysis, and less political rhetoric, is injected into the conversation.

Finally, I voted for Obama (twice). There is no political motivation. I hope he succeeds and becomes a great president and the U.S. continues to be a great country. Yet, I don't have to support every policy and the accompanying rhetoric.

I'm as pure as white driven snow (albeit, with a slight hangover, 2 devil's horns and six toes on my left foot).

[Massimo GIANNINI - M.G. in Progress]

I am surprised by these kind of debate and questions about green economy.
Have somebody ever asked if finance jobs are bogus? We can easily demonstrate that they are far more bogus of green jobs as they produce destruction of wealth while absorbing public spending resources.
What about producing goods that consumers are not buying (for instance some cars?)
What about jobs in building bridges to nowhere?

[Tim Haab]

M.G.

No one has claimed the jobs are bogus. It is the claim that economic stimulus in the form of subsidies to green industries will somehow magically result in a net (in the macro sense) increase in jobs that we find bogus. I would say the same if someone claimed that propping up the auto industry would 'create' 5 million jobs.

[Massimo GIANNINI - M.G. in Progress]

Tim:
Does it economically make a differen to create new bogus jobs or maintaining "useless" (not always appropriate?) ones? It all depends on how productive are those jobs in the short and long term and their added value to the economy. I am sure a job in the green sector creates more added value than in the car industry.
A subsidy to, or a bailout of, an industry has always the same effects. It's just a matter of restructuring the economy to "survive" and grow. Where can you create jobs otherwise, which industry? The cost-benefit analysis should be made correctly before saying the jobs increase is bogus.

[Doug]

I think that the "cost-benefit analysis" may not turn out so well if this "green jobs" is like a glorified eco-friendly WPA program. The government should not be in the business of picking winners (that includes the non-eco-friendly auto and steel industries.)

MAYBE the government has a role in helping to kick-start price-discovery for pollutants, through taxation of cap-and-trade. Then the market will pick the winners and losers. Look what happened after the SO2 program was initiated - natural gas power plants sprung up like daisies, clean(er) coal became much more valuable, AND lots of coal miners in Appalachia lost their jobs. The jobs kind of sloshed around, but the country was better off because acid rain was cut dramatically.

"Green jobs" is a red herring to help the carbox tax medicine go down easier. (How's that for mixing metaphors?)

[odograph]

No one has claimed the jobs are bogus. It is the claim that economic stimulus in the form of subsidies to green industries will somehow magically result in a net (in the macro sense) increase in jobs that we find bogus

I'm sure you're keeping up with the Thoma blog ...