Renewable Energy and Job Creation
In my ongoing quest to understand the implications of renewable energy into the job market, I came across this video on job creation more generally – a talk by venture capitalist Nick Hanauer. You’ll notice that this was made to be among the famous Ted Talks, but it never got there. For those who may be interested, here’s the reason it failed.
Glad to see the realities being discussed – and I’m glad that vid’s going viral!
I have a MBA in finances. I totally agree with the conclusions. It was definitely proven during the last 5 years. A jobless recovery has occurred. New technology was purchased and this eliminated millions of workers. Manufacturing has recovered to pre-2007 levels with 5 million less people.
Yes, there are 525K views and climbing on YouTube; that’s one hell of a lot more than it would have gotten on Ted.com. Plus, I think all the controversy on pushing it out of Ted makes it that much more interesting to people generally.
It also comes at a good time, vis-a-vis Warren Buffett’s “Tax Me” article.
Mr. Hanauer is about 73% correct.
Contrary to what many Republicans assert, reducing taxes for the rich will not in itself cause businesses to expand and create jobs UNLESS the businesses are running at capacity and cannot meet the demand for goods and services without expanding. If businesses are unable to meet the demand for goods and services and lack the capital to expand, THEN lower taxes on the rich could enable them to invest money to enable businesses to expand, but that is not the situation which we are currently facing. Right now, it is inadequate aggregate demand that is keeping businesses from expanding and hiring more people so increasing taxes on the wealthy would be unlikely to dampen the economy.
The effect of increasing taxes on the rich depends on a number of factors and would not be the same under all economic conditions.
Under current economic conditions, increasing taxes on the rich would not be an unreasonable thing to do from the economic standpoint. However, those arguing for and against doing so should present charts and graphs to indicate how much additional revenue could be raised by increasing taxes on the rich. And, the increased potential revenue should not be presented only in raw dollar amounts; rather, it should be presented as a percentage increase to enable us to fit it into context.
Arguments presented by politicians and political advertisements seem to be aimed at people with sixth grade educations. They are exceedingly simplistic and lack substance. Politicians should carefully, and in adequate detail, explain the logic and theory on which their positions are based and, when appropriate, include charts and graphs. When politicians are interviewed, interviewers should not permit them to evade questions and give simplistic answers.
We read about CEOs whose financial remuneration exceeds $10 million per year, but we do not see charts and graphs that indicate what percentage of individual earned income goes to those who have exceedingly high incomes. Whenever the media mention such high income, they should present figures to enable us to fit it into an understandable context.
Although companies assert that exceedingly high salaries are required to get the most competent people, they have presented no proof. Actually, exceedingly high salaries can reduce the quality of life. The CEO (or perhaps it was the president) of General Motors flew to Washington in a private jet to beg for help from the federal government. The incongruity if flying on a jet for that purpose was obvious and repeatedly pointed out. He asserted that the private jet was necessary for security because it would be to dangerous for him to take a commercial flight. So, it seems that people with exceedingly high incomes, out of fear for their security, cannot even live normal lives in which case probably they’d be happier with lower incomes.
The solution to exceedingly high salaries for executives may be to let shareholders vote to determine the salaries.
Which is best for renewable enregy minor, Electrical or Mechanical engineering? I wish to work with renewable enregy; for that I searched which career to study in the university. I found that many universities stated that a mayor in renewable enregy is not the right choice but instead as a minor with either Electrical or Mechanical engineering. I have read how each mayor does but I can’t still decide. Could someone help me please. P.S. I wish to work on big projects for the generation on enregy like the Andasol Solar Power Station