Obama "green jobs" = oil lobbyists, bus drivers, garbage men, used record stores

[werepossum]

I was about to agree with you again, but I realized that might rip a hole in the space-time continuum. I have money riding on the Mayans being wrong, so I'll have to disagree somewhat.

I think the utility is the same utility we gain from knowing how many people work in the auto industry vs. technology vs. the financial sector. It helps in planning and setting priorities. That said, I do agree "green" seems too broadly and nebulously defined to add a lot of value.

I think the real issue is not the data itself, but the fact that both the Obama admin and now Issa are trying to politicize it.

There might be some value in the data in the abstract, but I have difficulty seeing that the data as presented are useful in any way. As you say, they are too broadly defined and nebulously defined, and the conversion back into jobs as though that were some sort of standardized unit seems to serve only political purposes. Although I can understand it - I'm a habitual classifier myself, and if one is charged with creating "green jobs" then one wishes to have an output that can be expressed in "green jobs."

 

[Bowfinger]

"Dodge" meaning 'not answer the question'.

See bolded below. First he gets repetitive and starts repeating stuff so Isa stops him, then he wonders over to the unrelated subject of HC jobs - which Issa actually allowed to continue for a moment.

We'll have to agree to disagree, IMO the guy was dodging questions like Neo dodges bullets.



Fern

Yes, I already pointed that out:

"Issa acknowledged he'd been briefed on this, yet he posed his bogus questions anyway. In my book, that makes him either shamelessly dishonest or a total moron."
​

So do you have any factual information contradicting my understanding of the BLS methodology, or is this another case of you discarding fact in order to support your party? BLS didn't define jobs, it defined products and services. Issa's questions were therefore just as meaningless as asking how many inches is a gallon.

 

[woolfe9999]

Those of us who complain about too much government, too much money spent, and too many government employees really don't see a lot of utility in compiling the number of "green jobs", regardless of whether it's compiled by government or the private sector. Let each company advertise, and be judged by, exactly what they actually do rather than argue over how many "green jobs" each has created.

Why not? We compile statistics on every sector of jobs imaginable. I suspect you're unaware of just how little we would know about what is going on in our economy if the federal government did not compile statistics.

I think we need to have a libertarian experiment in this country. I really do. People do not even realize the things that government does on a daily basis which we depend on.

BTW I didn't see you defending your conspiracy theory about agencies who compile statistics cooking the books to favor the current POTUS. It's pretty easily refutable BTW, on the very surface of it. I'd like to see you try defending it.

 

[werepossum]

Why not? We compile statistics on every sector of jobs imaginable. I suspect you're unaware of just how little we would know about what is going on in our economy if the federal government did not compile statistics.

I think we need to have a libertarian experiment in this country. I really do. People do not even realize the things that government does on a daily basis which we depend on.

BTW I didn't see you defending your conspiracy theory about agencies who compile statistics cooking the books to favor the current POTUS. It's pretty easily refutable BTW, on the very surface of it. I'd like to see you try defending it.

I think government agencies cook the books to favor GOVERNMENT, not specifically the current POTUS. How can you believe that we need lots of government to watch over private industry and not be worried that this lots of government is largely self-supervising? There is no homo sapiens governus comprised of individuals without the same self-interest as the rest of us; there is no special ethics requirement to get a government job. They have the same self-interest to show their jobs are worthwhile as any other human, but there is no government watching over government to see that it researches things honestly and states things accurately. Just as politicians are first and foremost interested in getting and retaining power, government is first and foremost in the business of promoting government.

Look at unemployment numbers though; since Obama took over calculating unemployment, many outlets have reported that by the states' calculations unemployment would be higher, based on their own research. Each of us can decide if that's self interest bias or coincidence.

 

[Fern]

Yes, I already pointed that out:

"Issa acknowledged he'd been briefed on this, yet he posed his bogus questions anyway. In my book, that makes him either shamelessly dishonest or a total moron."​

Or it could be he's trying to make a point in a televised hearing and have it publicized. Seems to me that's exactly the point of such hearings.

So do you have any factual information contradicting my understanding of the BLS methodology, or is this another case of you discarding fact in order to support your party? BLS didn't define jobs, it defined products and services. Issa's questions were therefore just as meaningless as asking how many inches is a gallon.

As I've already said, I don't think your understanding adds much to the conversation. Firstly, I'm far more interested in the understanding of the methods held by those running the agency. Secondly, most of my remarks concern the claim that Issa was being 'unfair' etc. They're big boys, they should know how to handle themselves. They were dodging, got caught and got 'pinned'. It's S.O.P. by lawyers. I've been a witness in court cases and my cross examinations were sometimes worse, much worse.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Why not? We compile statistics on every sector of jobs imaginable. I suspect you're unaware of just how little we would know about what is going on in our economy if the federal government did not compile statistics.
-snip-

Is (expensive) data that is 'soft' of any more use than no data? Honest question. My answer would be that it most likely isn't.

Another honest question: What is the purpose of developing this data? What is it used for?

If it's to be used for some political purpose such as claiming that Green Jobs have seen great growth under Obama then it's bogus.

If it's to develop national policy then I think it's rather useless as it's currently operated. I think we should narrow the focus, a lot. If we're tracking green industry then I'd recommend we develop a list of the specific industries we're actually interested in, such as PV and other solar powered electrical generation, bio-fuels etc. Right now I think we're looking at GIGO.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Or it could be he's trying to make a point in a televised hearing and have it publicized. Seems to me that's exactly the point of such hearings.

Ah, that's where we have different expectations. Given that the taxpayers paid for this performance, I would hope it was intended to be informational. If it's just for Issa to generate clips for his reelection ads -- "Look at me, asking the 'hard' (but dishonest questions) -- his campaign should be reimbursing taxpayers for all their money he just wasted. (And yes, if you want to point to Dems doing the same thing, I'll say the same about them.)

As I've already said, I don't think your understanding adds much to the conversation. ...

That's apparently because we're having two different conversations. Mine was about Issa's empty posturing and the fact he used a dishonest premise to mislead anyone who naively assumed there was informational value in the proceeding. I have been trying to show others how his premise was dishonest.

Your conversation, if I'm interpreting it accurately, is more focused on the criticisms against Issa being unreasonable because the primary purpose of such hearings is empty posturing. You accept that as essentially standard practice for our Congresscritters, a point I cannot dispute. You also question the value and political use of the "green jobs" data, a point I again largely agree with.


Is that reasonably accurate?

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
There is no homo sapiens governus comprised of individuals without the same self-interest as the rest of us; there is no special ethics requirement to get a government job. They have the same self-interest to show their jobs are worthwhile as any other human, but there is no government watching over government to see that it researches things honestly and states things accurately. ...

That is supposed to be the role of the press, the Fourth Estate. Unfortunately, they've almost entirely abdicated that role over the last 30 years, plus or minus, as they've been assimilated by media conglomerates fixated on profits instead of professional journalism.

Look at unemployment numbers though; since Obama took over calculating unemployment, many outlets have reported that by the states' calculations unemployment would be higher, based on their own research. Each of us can decide if that's self interest bias or coincidence.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I don't believe there's anything about the current BLS employment and unemployment data that's unique to Obama. The same issues were raised during the Bush administration. It also used the more favorable unemployment figures (U3 vs. U12?) to boast about how well their recovery was going. Just like now, everyone recognized that metric significantly understated unemployment, but that was the one customarily reported. In fact, I believe that was standard practice even before Bush 43.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Is that reasonably accurate?

Mostly, but I don't think the posturing is empty. I do think it serves a purpose, namely to highlight the poor quality of this info.

And I have an honest concern about this because I'm interested in these industries. While I strongly disagree with subsidies to any single business (e.g., Solyndra) I think I could support some tax breaks for these industries as a whole. But to go about this in an intelligent way we need good data.

(Not that it matters much except for my own amusement, but I've been considering suggesting some 'out-of-the-box' type incentives for these industries. Right now my favorite is offering those who invest in these new companies' stock an immediate write-off for such investment/stock purchase. Make it a limit of $100K or so. The purchase may need to be directly from the company in one it's offerings so they actually receive the money. OTOH, maybe not if you want to create a viable secondary market for their stock. I'm thinking the write-off would be in the form of an immediate capital loss. This would make the basis zero meaning any recoupment from a later sale would all be taxable. Now if you make it a capital loss then you may limit it's appeal to just the wealthy who are probably the only ones who can actually use such a loss on their tax returns. Capital losses are limited to $3K or cap gains. So it's usually only the wealthy who have sufficient cap gains to use such a deduction/write-off. However, they are the ones who actually have the real money to invest. Plus it has the added effect of getting their money off the sidelines and deployed somewhere we want to help move the economy. The latter is a big complaint of the Left so that should be attractive to them.)

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

I think government agencies cook the books to favor GOVERNMENT, not specifically the current POTUS. How can you believe that we need lots of government to watch over private industry and not be worried that this lots of government is largely self-supervising? There is no homo sapiens governus comprised of individuals without the same self-interest as the rest of us; there is no special ethics requirement to get a government job. They have the same self-interest to show their jobs are worthwhile as any other human, but there is no government watching over government to see that it researches things honestly and states things accurately. Just as politicians are first and foremost interested in getting and retaining power, government is first and foremost in the business of promoting government.

Look at unemployment numbers though; since Obama took over calculating unemployment, many outlets have reported that by the states' calculations unemployment would be higher, based on their own research. Each of us can decide if that's self interest bias or coincidence.

BLS too often comes out with unemployment numbers that are inconvenient to the administration. If they were cooking the books, we wouldn't have seen the anemic numbers we've been seeing these last 2 months, when we're on the verge of an election. Sorry, they've been using the same methodology for ages, and it produces varying results, both in and out of alignment with the interests of then current administrations.

 

[woolfe9999]

Is (expensive) data that is 'soft' of any more use than no data? Honest question. My answer would be that it most likely isn't.

Fern

You're begging the question of whether the data is too "soft" to be of use for policy reasons. The methodology used is rather abstract. It doesn't try to define a "job" as green or not. Rather, it defines industries as green or not, and tracks jobs in those industries. The idea of parsing an infinite array of different jobs as green or not green is definitionally problematic.

This method obviously has the shortcoming of over-counting in some cases and under counting in others. For example, a floor sweeper at a solar company is a green job. An environmental compliance manager at an oil refinery is not. The theory is that the over and under counting roughly cancel each other out. That is the theory behind any statistical counting method, actually.

We don't need 100% accuracy for such a system to be of use for policy reasons. A reasonable approximation will probably due. If you used this method repeatedly over time, it will show a proper vector (trend line) because whatever error exists in the method will be consistent over time. If there's a more accurate system that is cost-efficient, then that's going to be preferred. I just don't know that there is. I also don't really know how close an approximation this system provides, and neither do you.

Another honest question: What is the purpose of developing this data? What is it used for?

If it's to be used for some political purpose such as claiming that Green Jobs have seen great growth under Obama then it's bogus.

Ostensibly, the purpose was for developing policy. I say ostensibly, because I can't rule out a political purpose either in addition to, or instead or, a policy purpose.

If it's to develop national policy then I think it's rather useless as it's currently operated. I think we should narrow the focus, a lot. If we're tracking green industry then I'd recommend we develop a list of the specific industries we're actually interested in, such as PV and other solar powered electrical generation, bio-fuels etc. Right now I think we're looking at GIGO.

Except the system does, in fact, track these individual industries. And I'm willing to bet that this data is even available to the public. It's how the BLS operates. For example, everyone talks about the total month job numbers, but I guess most people don't realize that there is a report every month which contains those numbers by sector. With "green jobs," they in fact are tracking them by first identifying particular industries and applying codes to them, then compiling a total number from all of this data. If we want to know how many jobs we have in solar, for example, I'll bet you can find that data in the same report as the one offering the "total green jobs" number.

It may well be, BTW, that the "total green jobs" number is essentially meaningless except as a political data point, whereas the useful information is in the specific sub-categories. Nonetheless, the total number is compiled from industry sub-totals.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

That is supposed to be the role of the press, the Fourth Estate. Unfortunately, they've almost entirely abdicated that role over the last 30 years, plus or minus, as they've been assimilated by media conglomerates fixated on profits instead of professional journalism.


Perhaps I've missed something, but I don't believe there's anything about the current BLS employment and unemployment data that's unique to Obama. The same issues were raised during the Bush administration. It also used the more favorable unemployment figures (U3 vs. U12?) to boast about how well their recovery was going. Just like now, everyone recognized that metric significantly understated unemployment, but that was the one customarily reported. In fact, I believe that was standard practice even before Bush 43.

BLS too often comes out with unemployment numbers that are inconvenient to the administration. If they were cooking the books, we wouldn't have seen the anemic numbers we've been seeing these last 2 months, when we're on the verge of an election. Sorry, they've been using the same methodology for ages, and it produces varying results, both in and out of alignment with the interests of then current administrations.

Perhaps, but we're seeing something now we haven't seen before, unemployment rates significantly dropping while the labor participation rate is also significantly dropping. That certainly suggests changes in the methodology or its interpretation.

 

[BoberFett]

I'd say any job selling used items is more or less a green job, since it's recycling something that would otherwise be thrown away and presumably bought new.

Then it's too bad that the Democrats want to kill green jobs by making anything related to intellectual propery impossible and/or illegal to resell...

 

[werepossum]

Then it's too bad that the Democrats want to kill green jobs by making anything related to intellectual propery impossible and/or illegal to resell...

Aren't the Republicans just as bad, really?

I'm all for protecting IP. Problem is, the people writing the big checks want to go way overboard to pad their own wallets. They want to have it both ways, can't copy it because you don't own the IP and can't change to another medium because you only own it on the one. Doesn't seem right.

 

[yllus]

Did you read the transcript? Issa did NOT give Galvin a choice:

REP. ISSA: [...] If you sweep the floor in a solar panel facility, is that a green job?
MR. GALVIN: Yes.
​

I don't know whether I'd say yes or no. No because he's not himself making green, uh, stuff, but yes because it is a job created as a result of a green company. I think to bully him into a yes/no does a disservice to anyone truly trying to understand the issue.

We'll have to agree to disagree, IMO the guy was dodging questions like Neo dodges bullets.

I didn't see it that way. But it is true that measuring "green jobs" is very problematic because of the politics attached.

 

[cybrsage]

Did you read the transcript? Issa did NOT give Galvin a choice:

REP. ISSA: Does someone who sweeps — does someone who sweeps the floor in a facility that makes solar panels, is that a green job?
[ ... ]
MR. JOHN GALVIN: We define — we have a two-part definition –
REP. ISSA: We already had the briefing on that. So just answer the question. If you’re sweeping the floor in a solar panel production facility, is that a green job?
MR. GALVIN: If you ask me for the number of health care jobs in the United States, I’ll give you the employment from the health care industry.
REP. ISSA: Look, Mr. Galvin –
MR. GALVIN: — nurses and doctors –
REP. ISSA: You did not want to come here as a witness. You are not a delighted witness. So let’s go through this.
I asked you a question. You know the answer. Would you please answer it.
If you sweep the floor in a solar panel facility, is that a green job?
MR. GALVIN: Yes.
​

I do not see anywhere in which Issa said "you must only answer with yes or no". Galvin decided to answer with only yes or no. You continue to blame someone OTHER than the person giving the answer for the answer given. Can you actually support your position?

 

[Bowfinger]

I do not see anywhere in which Issa said "you must only answer with yes or no". Galvin decided to answer with only yes or no. You continue to blame someone OTHER than the person giving the answer for the answer given. Can you actually support your position?

That's willful intellectual dishonesty. Is there anyone else here who wants to support Cybrsage in pretending Issa did not demand a yes or no answer?

 

[cybrsage]

That's willful intellectual dishonesty. Is there anyone else here who wants to support Cybrsage in pretending Issa did not demand a yes or no answer?

Quote him demanding it or you are a liar for saying he demanded it. YOU just made the claim, support it. Or are you just going to pretend lies are the truth again?

 

[Ninjahedge]

That's willful intellectual dishonesty. Is there anyone else here who wants to support Cybrsage in pretending Issa did not demand a yes or no answer?

No.

 

[yllus]

That's willful intellectual dishonesty. Is there anyone else here who wants to support Cybrsage in pretending Issa did not demand a yes or no answer?

Nope. Mr. Issa was clearly looking for a simple affirmative/negative answer to his questions.

 

[cybrsage]

Nope. Mr. Issa was clearly looking for a simple affirmative/negative answer to his questions.

Quote it then. Quote him saying the respondant had to respond in the manner he did. Should be easy, since you say it is clear. Heck, quote the portions that even clearly imply it, since you say it exists.

 

[yllus]

Quote it then. Quote him saying the respondant had to respond in the manner he did. Should be easy, since you say it is clear. Heck, quote the portions that even clearly imply it, since you say it exists.

Winning a non-argument with you isn't something I'm going to spend any of my time on.

 

[PokerGuy]

At no point does Issa say or even imply that the answer has to be yes/no. He simply doesn't want Galvin to stall and obfuscate and blabber on. That's why he said "you know the answer, lets get through this". He just wants a straight answer, which Galvin eventually does give. Issa rocks.

 

[Bowfinger]

Flawed premise? It's a very simple yes / no question. Is <insert job here> tallied as a green job or not. Yes or no. The premise is irrelevant, unless you're trying to stall or obfuscate.

At no point does Issa say or even imply that the answer has to be yes/no. He simply doesn't want Galvin to stall and obfuscate and blabber on. That's why he said "you know the answer, lets get through this". He just wants a straight answer, which Galvin eventually does give. Issa rocks.

That's the problem with blindly defending one's party with neither a clue nor a list of prepared talking points to parrot. When you make up your spin as you go along, sooner or later you shoot yourself in the foot. You should leave it to the pros and wait for your talking points before posting.