Keep pushing green folks lol "Green-jobs subsidies created 1 job for every $4.85m"

[bfdd]

But the actual results in this case are much worse. With $17.2 billion spent on these programs, the cost per actual job created comes to $4.853 million. That kind of capital could launch entire new businesses, let alone multiple jobs. Any company that ate through $4.853 million to create a job would shortly become a former company … kind of like Solyndra, where $535 million disappeared and took 1,000 jobs along with it.

there is no money to be made pushing so hard on green tech. no money = no jobs, no jobs = no growth. stop it morons. a proper approach to going "green" is pushing for modern nuclear reactors to be constructed, which would create actual long lasting jobs, creations of new more modern refineries so we can increase our energy exports, again creating long lasting well paying jobs. we're just wasting dollars and gaining nothing for it except short-term "feel-goodness", which is perfect for someone like moonbeam who does nothing but preach self-hate all day.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/...s-created-1-job-for-every-5-44-million-spent/

 

[actuarial]

there is no money to be made pushing so hard on green tech. no money = no jobs, no jobs = no growth. stop it morons. a proper approach to going "green" is pushing for modern nuclear reactors to be constructed, which would create actual long lasting jobs, creations of new more modern refineries so we can increase our energy exports, again creating long lasting well paying jobs. we're just wasting dollars and gaining nothing for it except short-term "feel-goodness", which is perfect for someone like moonbeam who does nothing but preach self-hate all day.

I agree on the green tech, but this may be a case of applying statistics with faulty data.

Specifically, I wonder how the 1,000 jobs was come up with. For example, my company of me (1) could be given $500M, and I could go out and buy 10,000 Detroit made trucks with that money.

Now if my 'actuarial driving trucks for fun' business goes under (I imagine it will, where does the revenue come from?!?), it says that $500M created one job. But that's not exactly true, is it?

 

[piasabird]

I think a lot of green jobs is all smoke and mirrors. If the USA was just forced to live in slightly smaller homes and drive vehicles that were a little smaller (Even for bribes) we could possible reduce energy usage by 20% and create less emissions. It also might make more sense to put more of the oil refineries and big polluters on the east coast or close to it, just so most of the emissions would go out toward the ocean and we would have cleaner air. With some of these green jobs we are kidding ourselves. Where are all the fuel cells we saw a while back? All I see is the government wasting money. We dont need more green energy ponzy schemes.

 

[Fern]

Given how bad we got schooled by China in the Solyndra example, I'd be very damn careful about investing in any more green-type manufacturing projects.

Fern

 

[First]

What jobs were created in the 60's and 70's when the U.S. gov't poured billions into Ethernet, Intranet, and computer technology? I'm sure the answer is far worse.

Fact is green technology is the wave of the future, most likely solar. Get used to the idea.

 

[First]

Given how bad we got schooled by China in the Solyndra example, I'd be very damn careful about investing in any more green-type manufacturing projects.

Fern

lmao, wut?

 

[bfdd]

What jobs were created in the 60's and 70's when the U.S. gov't poured billions into Ethernet, Intranet, and computer technology? I'm sure the answer is far worse.

Fact is green technology is the wave of the future, most likely solar. Get used to the idea.

Cool lets go back further, remember when they spent all that money on nuclear tech? Why not use that to it's full advantage before completely dismissing it like a bunch of foolish idiots? Mark my words, Solar energy will become a viable energy source when the space elevator is invented and not a day earlier.

 

[Fern]

lmao, wut?

Seriously?

Read the news sometimes.

Fern

 

[Fern]

What jobs were created in the 60's and 70's when the U.S. gov't poured billions into Ethernet, Intranet, and computer technology? I'm sure the answer is far worse.
-snip-

You just made that up.

The government had little or nothing to do with the invention of the microchip. The govt did become a big customer which helped, but to give them credit for it is absurd. I think it could reasonably be said that private industry helped govt by creating technology it needed. Yet you've turned it around completely.

Fern

 

[First]

You just made that up.

The government had little or nothing to do with the invention of the microchip. The govt did become a big customer which helped, but to give them credit for it is absurd. I think it could reasonably be said that private industry helped govt by creating technology it needed. Yet you've turned it around completely.

Fern

The government was a hugely important contributor in developing Ethernet and packet-switched networks, greatly aided the initial expansion of the Internet across both local/state universities and federal buildings for ARPANET in the 60's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet) as a way to respond to nuclear attack (in the process developing computers that acted as routers), and greatly aided the initial invention of the CPU via ENIAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC). None of this gets done anywhere near as quickly or with as much scope and reach without gov't intervention at every level to create the laboratories and capital needed to sustain such research over many, many years. These are well known contributions that the federal govt made to the development of the Internet and computers. They are fact and undisputed by anyone that works in IT.

To say the private industry helped gov't is of course true, but to minimize the role gov't played is simply ideological conservative canard gamesmanship. Stick to accounting, you're not good in a tech debate.

 

[bfdd]

the amount spent by DARPA on that I bet is less than we've spent on green initiatives in the last 5 years. plus all that tech was built upon other tech, it didn't just come out of thin air. the computer is ancient. i guess we should thank those ancient fucks for spending so much "money" on the abacus. also, if you read your link to ENIAC you'd know that lols they stole from someone else.

 

[First]

Cool lets go back further, remember when they spent all that money on nuclear tech? Why not use that to it's full advantage before completely dismissing it like a bunch of foolish idiots?

Nuclear tech hasn't been "dismissed", it has been rejected by American citizens who don't want plants in their neighborhoods. If Americans didn't mind a nuclear plant in their backyard we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But Americans, tending to want to mitigate the risk of radiation and all its bad connotations, decided to let their representatives in Congress know they didn't like them.

Mark my words, Solar energy will become a viable energy source when the space elevator is invented and not a day earlier.

Yeah sure, let's bet money.

 

[First]

the amount spent by DARPA on that I bet is less than we've spent on green initiatives in the last 5 years. plus all that tech was built upon other tech, it didn't just come out of thin air. the computer is ancient. i guess we should thank those ancient fucks for spending so much "money" on the abacus. also, if you read your link to ENIAC you'd know that lols they stole from someone else.

1) I've seen no evidence of this.
2) All tech is built on other tech, that's a useless statement.
3) Read the link again, you're confused about the relevance of what you read lulz.

 

[bfdd]

1) I've seen no evidence of this.
2) All tech is built on other tech, that's a useless statement.
3) Read the link again, you're confused about the relevance of what you read lulz.

I'm just going back. I mean if we're going to give credit for time and money spent on things, we need to keep going back. Also, pull up how much they spent on Arpanet. You think it's in the 10s of bllions? lols... doubt it. They spent somewhere around 20 billion on the Manhattan Project.

And you need to read your link again because it clearly states on the Atanasoff-Berry Computer wiki page that the fools who patented the ENIAC stole from them. It was cleared up in the 70s. derp a der

 

[werepossum]

Given how bad we got schooled by China in the Solyndra example, I'd be very damn careful about investing in any more green-type manufacturing projects.

Fern

Or we could change the rules so that imported solar panels are not eligible for government subsidies. Solar and wind are not currently anywhere near practical unless government takes money from one party to give it to the party buying green power, so merely removing the subsidies would fix that. Then we would have the advantages of green technology as well as the money we would otherwise ship to China, and hopefully eventually some of these technologies would become practical if limited alternatives to coal and oil.

 

[Rainsford]

As was mentioned before, we'd be stupid not to consider the economic implications of green technology work beyond immediate job creation.

 

[bfdd]

Or we could change the rules so that imported solar panels are not eligible for government subsidies. Solar and wind are not currently anywhere near practical unless government takes money from one party to give it to the party buying green power, so merely removing the subsidies would fix that. Then we would have the advantages of green technology as well as the money we would otherwise ship to China, and hopefully eventually some of these technologies would become practical if limited alternatives to coal and oil.

Government subsidizes like 75% of solar panel purchases. lol @ all the green lovers wanting to help funnel money to the top. then in the next sentence they'll demonize all the asshole oil company execs who are stealing money from people through subsidiaries etc. the only people we're helping with this bullshit is people with money. green tech isn't helping everyone, it's helping very few feel extra warm and cozy for themselves while we tell others not to have things as nice as them. pathetic asshole fucks. all of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[JSt0rm]

Title seems misleading. no time to investigate on my own but I dont believe you.

 

[bfdd]

Title seems misleading. no time to investigate on my own but I dont believe you.

ok, so you're admitting you're a clueless fool and you are happy being a clueless fool. grats

actually i just realized I forgot to post the link.... FUCK ME!

 

[JSt0rm]

ok, so you're admitting you're a clueless fool and you are happy being a clueless fool. grats

actually i just realized I forgot to post the link.... FUCK ME!

Please think about not having children.

 

[bfdd]

Please think about not having children.

lols

 

[First]

I'm just going back. I mean if we're going to give credit for time and money spent on things, we need to keep going back. Also, pull up how much they spent on Arpanet. You think it's in the 10s of bllions? lols... doubt it. They spent somewhere around 20 billion on the Manhattan Project.

I don't think you quite get the magnitudes here. They could've spent $100B over decades and it would have been worth it considering IT has amounted to untold trillions in wealth around the world.

And you need to read your link again because it clearly states on the Atanasoff-Berry Computer wiki page that the fools who patented the ENIAC stole from them. It was cleared up in the 70s. derp a der

Point flying over your head there kiddo, guess I can't hold your hand on everything.

 

[bfdd]

Your point is you brought up ENIAC to show the government had a crucial hand in the development of the CPU, but those designs were stolen from someone else who had designed it so your point is moot and it doesn't fly. Also, cough up the figure the government has paid for those two technological advances. Like I said it goes no where near the 10s of billions spent on bullshit green tech that is no further along today than it was 10 years ago.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Like I said it goes no where near the 10s of billions spent on bullshit green tech that is no further along today than it was 10 years ago.

Actually, one reason why Solyndra failed was because solar panel prices dropped too quickly -- a 70% drop in prices over the last 24 months.
http://www.greatenergychallengeblog.com/blog/2011/08/31/a-silver-lining-in-declining-solar-prices/

The feds probably have wasted billions, though nothing like the tens of billions that have gone missing in Iraq and Afghanistan. But: solar and wind are becoming more viable than they were just a few years ago.

Also, even incandescent bulbs can run 30% more efficiently now thanks to the evil fed regulators pushing for more efficient bulb tech.

Some of the green subsidies are stupid, some are a good deal for our long-term dependence on imported oil and burning of dirty coal.

Finally, I have nothing against nuclear power. I agree that it can be greener than coal, and makes more sense than solar and wind in at least some cases.

 

[bfdd]

I'll give wind a nod, there's some very cool new wind tech coming out, but solar isn't even fucking close. Prices dropped for shitty solar panels and they're still expensive. It costs a person over ten thousand dollars to get an installation up on their roof and that's only a quarter of the total cost because more than half of it is subsidized by the government. Again, I am not against government regulations. I'm against stupid shit and this is all stupid shit.

Pushing and pushing for green jobs is silly, they just don't exist. We can't compete with the Chinese in manufacturing solar panels manually because of our labor laws and high cost, we can't compete doing it automated because the materials are expensive and it has an incredibly high start up cost. Then lets not forget, what fucking jobs are we going to create now? We've created automated factories to make these panels, employing probably 1/10th of the possible amount of people it could have employed doing it the manual way, then how many people get jobs for installation and maintenance? VERY FEW JOBS BECAUSE THEY DONT REQUIRE A LOT OF EITHER. Most jobs will come from installation and the majority of maintenance is replacing panels. So we create a bunch of short term jobs to feel good GREAT, we don't export anything and we still lose.

Seriously, tell me what green jobs we're going to make and export things to bring in wealth. What are they?