Aguanomics on green jobs

David Zetland:

Over the past few years, I've noted repeatedly (example example) that the Pacific Institute tends to put too much emphasis on engineering and not enough on economics ...

PI just issued two new reports demonstrating how their method fails. ...

The second is a study of the potential for "green jobs," in which PI says:

An investment of $1 million in alternative water supply projects yields 10-15 jobs; in stormwater management, 5-20 jobs; in urban conservation and efficiency, 12-22 jobs; in agricultural efficiency and quality, 14.6 jobs; in restoration and remediation, 10-72 jobs

Now, I'm going to ignore non-skilled jobs that cost $50-$100k each as well as the ludicrous range of estimates and concentrate on two obvious flaws in this report. First, it ignores the fact that jobs are a COST. We should be concentrating on destroying, not making jobs, since fewer workers per project implies higher productivity and living standards. We want people to work, of course, but where their salary creates value. Second, the opportunity cost of these "green investments" [sic] is not just the $1 million that comes out of taxpayer pockets but the other places that could use $1 million. Green jobs sound nice, but they are often worthless.

via www.aguanomics.com