Broken Windows: Destroying Wealth To Create Green Jobs

25 Saturday Feb 2023

Posted by Nuetzel in Industrial Policy, Renewable Energy

Tags

Broken Windows Fallacy, Consumer Surplus, Dispatchable Power, Fossil fuels, Frederic Bastiat, Green Energy, Green Jobs, Job Creation, Keynesians, London’s Great Fire, Market Intervention, Michael Munger, Milton Friedman, Planned Obsolescence, Renewable Power, Societal Wealth

Investments in “green energy” create jobs, just like any other form of investment in physical assets. We’re told, however, that the transition to renewable energy sources will create a veritable jobs bonanza! Apparently, this is believed to be a great selling point for everyone to get behind. Sure, promoting job creation is always popular with politicians, and it is very popular with private actors seeking to win public funding of one kind or another.

The heavy emphasis on jobs creation brings to mind an old Milton Friedman story about a visit to China during which dignitaries brought him to a construction site, no doubt thinking he’d be impressed with their progressive investments in infrastructure. At the site, Friedman noticed workers digging a large trench or arroyo with shovels. When he asked why bulldozers or backhoes weren’t used, he was told that the jobs were too valuable. His response was something like, “Then have them use spoons!” The lesson, of course, is that merely creating jobs is not a prescription for building wealth and prosperity. But there is more at stake here than the low productivity of construction workers who lack the best tools.

There are some bad rationales for heavy investment in renewable energy sources, and I’ve addressed those at length previously. The appeal to job creation, however, is awful on simple economic grounds. It emphasizes a thing that is easily counted while ignoring massive costs that are generally untallied.

In the U.S. we have a huge base of productive capital that meets our energy needs, the bulk of which is built to utilize fossil fuels. That plant constitutes wealth to society, and not just to those with an ownership interest. Dispatchable power is available to the public at a rate below that at which they value the power. That ability to deliver consumer surplus on demand is a major aspect qualifying power capacity as societal wealth. The push for renewables, if wholly successful, would make the existing base of generating capacity redundant. There is no doubt that the ultimate goal of renewable energy advocates is to destroy existing capacity reliant on fossil fuels. They simply have not come to grips with the reality that it meets energy needs far more efficiently than intermittent renewables like wind and solar power. In spirit, the effort bears a strong similarity to destroying bulldozers to replace them with shovels, or spoons!

Recently, Michael Munger discussed the mistaken notion that renewable investments are justified based on job creation. He noted that with a coincident dismantling of the existing base of power generation, it amounts to exactly what Frederic Bastiat called the broken window fallacy, which insists that breaking windows is a great way to keep glaziers fully employed. There are many examples and variations on this idea, including so-called “planned obsolescence”.

Bastiat poked fun at an elite French government official who had marveled at the economic gains reaped in England with the rebuilding of London following the “Great Fire” of 1666. Bastiat engaged in some satire by suggesting that France could greatly benefit from burning Paris to the ground. But his point was serious: we often hear that reconstruction provides a silver lining for workers following hurricanes or other disasters. Fair enough: rebuild we must. The Keynesians among us would say it works out well for workers who are otherwise unemployed. Disasters destroy wealth, however, and often lives, not to mention opportunities for incremental wealth creation that are lost forever. The reconstruction jobs are not “good news”!

Unfortunately, people get carried away with broken windows arguments, using them to justify their own pet projects. The addition of new competing products and technologies is unquestionably healthy, but not when one side enlists the state as a partner in destroying viable incumbents and existing public or private wealth. For that matter, the state and its allies seem intent on destroying invested physical capital even before it’s services can come on line… if it’s viewed as the “wrong” kind of capital.

The costs of a transition to renewables is massive. The “big ask” for green energy involves not just taxpayer support for the build and usage, with all the inefficiencies endemic to taxation and market interventions. So-called green energy also entails huge environmental costs, and it calls for the wholesale destruction of an embedded industry. That means decommissioning invested assets having many years of useful life. And that goes for physical plant all the way from the wellhead to final use, including the destruction of stoves, cars, and other machines too numerous to mention. Those machines, by the way, still account for roughly 80% of our power use.

I leave you with part of Munger’s closing:

“Once you are duped into believing destruction is productive, almost everything that a rational public policy would label as a cost becomes, by some judo move of seraphic intuition, a benefit. … The problem is that jobs are not wealth. Wealth is access to the goods, products, and services that make our lives better. It is true that ‘studies show’ that wiping out all our productive wealth based on fossil fuels … would create jobs. Those ‘studies’ are among the best arguments against doing anything of the sort.”

The Renewable Energy Jobs Hoax

30 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by Nuetzel in Renewable Energy, Subsidies, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Fossil fuels, Government Subsidies, infrastructure, James Taylor, Job Creation, Jobs Objective, Marginal cost, Mark Zuckerberg, Renewable energy, Renewable Energy Subsidies, Tariffs, Tim Worstall

James Taylor at Forbes reveals the dishonest math behind the claim that renewable energy generates more jobs than “conventional energy”, i.e., fossil fuels. It’s a simple trick, as Taylor explains:

“… renewable energy advocates create the broadest possible definition of workers ‘supported’ by the solar power industry, falsely claim that the solar power industry ’employed’ all these workers, and then compare that to the narrowest possible definition of just a single segment of workers ‘directly’ employed in the ‘extraction’ component of the much larger natural gas industry.“

Taylor notes that, “In reality, renewable energy isn’t even in the same universe of job creation as conventional energy.” He goes on to cite the report on which these claims are based and picks it apart. The renewable energy job assertions are obviously self-intereseted, as rent seeking lobbyists know that the political class is dominated by easy marks for renewable energy wonder-stories.

Of course Taylor is correct that the claims about renewable energy jobs are false in the aggregate sense. However, it might or might not be true in the marginal sense, and that’s clearly the sense in which the claim is intended to be taken, despite the fact that the data used is not marginal in nature. If true, it’s not a selling point for renewable energy subsidies because “more jobs” represents a greater marginal cost.

And that brings us to an even more critical issue missed by Taylor: public policy should not be based on the objective of direct job creation. Jobs are a cost, not a benefit. We value the finished goods, not the inputs required to produce them. If you don’t quite get that, imagine two bids for the construction of new kitchen in your home. Same plans, same completion date, similarly brilliant customer reviews of the competing contractors. Without knowing the actual bids, if one contractor tells you it’s a three-man job and the other says it’s a four-man job, you’ll be pretty certain which bid you’ll want to accept.

Ah, but you say, that’s not a fair comparison, because I’m paying for it. Yes you are, just as taxpayers (and more generally society) must pay for the subsidies that lobbyists wheedle out of politicians. Or you say, Ah, but we want more renewable jobs because we want renewable energy, ’cause it’s just right. Maybe, maybe not, but if that’s so, then the idea that the cost is higher because more jobs are required per unit of energy is not a good rationale.

It’s often the case that public policy aimed at “creating jobs” is not accompanied by higher output, lower prices, or even… more jobs! For example, tariffs on foreign goods give an advantage to American producers, but at the cost of job losses in import industries and higher domestic prices that harm consumers more broadly, and thereby reduce jobs. When certain industries or firms are subsidized by the government, the taxpayer is harmed directly, not to mention suppliers of alternatives. This is true at the local and national levels: politicians love to talk about job creation when they offer incentives for new facilities or relocations to their jurisdictions, but these subsidies may put other local firms at a competitive disadvantage and leave taxpayers holding the bag for public services supplied to the recipient firm. When government undertakes large taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects, which might or might not boost productivity, the taxes are damaging and the projects are often poorly planned and lack effective cost controls. Jobs are not a reason to support such projects.

Similar points have been discussed in the past here on Sacred Cow Chips, with links to articles emphasizing the distinction between direct jobs created and economic welfare like this one. “Jobs” should never be a policy objective in and of itself. As Tim Worstall explains in a brief review of Mark Zuckerberg’s recent commencement address at Harvard, jobs simply are not the point! Policy must have a better rationale than the high cost of the labor input!

Politicians and Infra-Hucksters

05 Thursday Jan 2017

Posted by Nuetzel in Government, infrastructure, Technology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Border Wall, Congestion, Donald Trump, Dynamic Message Boards, economic stimulus, Efficient Pricing, Elon Musk, eminent domain, Heritage Foundation, High speed rail, Hyperloop, infrastructure, Jerry L. Jordan, Job Creation, Keystone Pipeline, Michael Sargent, Private Infrastructure, Reason Foundation, Solar Roads, St. Louis MO, Steven Horowitz, T. Norman Van Cott, Trolleys, Tunnel Boring, User Fees

We’ll soon have a new president and already we’ve heard new promises of infrastructure investment. Once again, a chorus of politicians and pundits decries the woeful state of America’s road, bridges, sewers and airport terminals. Then, there are hosannas in adoration of the economic stimulus and job creation promised by large public works projects. And of course there are proposals to integrate politically-favored technologies with new infrastructure. All three rationales for a publicly-financed infrastructure program are flawed. Our infrastructure is not as inadequate as many believe; it is bad public policy to justify infrastructure decisions on the basis of the construction jobs required; and new infrastructure should not be treated as a vehicle for large-scale deployment of unproven technologies.

Ownership

Much of our nation’s infrastructure is privately owned. This includes, but is not limited to, power generation and the power grid, communication networks, many water systems and sewer systems, most rail lines, some toll roads and bridges, and some river, sea and space ports. Maintenance and upgrades to private facilities, and to some public facilities, depend on the adequacy of the rates or fees charged to users. On the other hand, the quantity and quality of publicly-owned and operated infrastructure is often left up to taxpayers rather than users. Proposals for federal infrastructure investment are largely about these public facilities, but they might also involve subsidies for the development of private infrastructure.

Crisis or Crock?

In a Heritage Foundation research report, Michael Sargent notes that the poor state of the country’s public infrastructure is wildly exaggerated:

“The notion that America’s infrastructure is ‘crumbling’ and in uniquely poor condition is not supported by data. The percentage of the nation’s bridges deemed ‘structurally deficient (not necessarily unsafe, but requiring extensive maintenance) has declined annually since 1990 and now sits at under 10 percent, well under half of what it was 25 years ago. Similarly, analyses of highway pavement quality conclude that the nation’s major roads have been steadily improving in quality and are likely in their best shape ever. Our airports and airways safely move more people and goods than those of any other nation. Overall, the U.S. ranks near the top of G-7 nations for infrastructure quality.“

The usual poster child of the infrastructure “crisis” is the nation’s transportation system, but this report from the Reason Foundation shows that those troubles are something of a myth.

Nevertheless, there are always repairs, maintenance and replacement projects to be considered, as well as possible expansion and new facilities. Infrastructural shortfalls and expansion must be prioritized, but as Sargent emphasizes, an even larger number of projects should and probably would be handled privately if not for burdensome federal regulations. In addition, an irrational mistrust of privately-operated facilities among some segments of the public creates pressure to burden taxpayers with costs, rather than users. Complaints about congestion on roads offer a case in point: the best solutions involve efficient (and positive) pricing of existing capacity, rather than continued expansion of a “free” good. The avoidance of rational solutions like efficient pricing underscores the extent to which demands for increased public investment in infrastructure are driven by hyperbole, rather than sound analysis.

It’s About the Infrastructure, Not the Jobs

Public infrastructure projects are also pitched as effective engines of economic stimulus and job creation. Both of those claims are questionable. Most importantly, the real rationale for infrastructure investment is the value of the infrastructure itself and the needs it serves going forward. The public expense and the jobs required to produce it are cost items! This point was made recently by economist T. Norman Van Cott, who rightfully asserts that a given output is of greater benefit when its costs are low and when it requires less labor input. (Van Cott’s piece uses the Keystone pipeline as an example, a controversial private project that I find objectionable for its dependence on eminent domain actions.) The sharp distinction between creating value and creating jobs is also made here by Jerry L. Jordon and here by Steven Horowitz. Here is Horowitz:

“Creating jobs is easy; it’s creating value that’s hard. We could create millions of jobs quite easily by destroying every piece of machinery on U.S. farms. The question is whether we are actually better off by creating those jobs—and the answer is a definite no.“

Yet this is how so many infrastructure projects are pitched at the national, state and local levels. It’s also puzzling that economic stimulus is used as a rationale even when the economy is operating near its potential output. Even by the standards of traditional Keynesian economic analysis, that is the wrong time for stimulus. Infrastructure projects should be evaluated on their own merits, not on how many construction workers must be hired, or on how much of their paychecks those workers will spend. Many of them must be bid away from competing projects anyway.

The Public Investment Trough

Here’s a brief anecdote from my own experience with an “advanced” public infrastructure project. Some years ago in the region around my city, St. Louis, Missouri, transportation agencies began to install a network of electronic highway message boards to convey real-time information to drivers on road conditions, congestion, and various public service announcements. The 100+ signs in the area today are connected to operators in a central office via fiber optic cable. This type of system is used elsewhere, and it is partly funded by the federal government.

I seriously question the benefits of this system relative to cost. The signs themselves cost well in excess of $100,000 each. The fiber network is undoubtedly costly, and there are other fixed and variable system costs. The signs have an anachronistic look, vaguely the quality of old high school scoreboards. The information they provide generally adds little to what I already know (“12 minutes to I-270”). The signs are in fixed positions, so the occasional report of an accident or congestion usually comes too late to give motorists decent alternatives. The information the signs provide on road conditions is obvious. Missives such as “buckle up” are of questionable value. Before I depart on a commute, or if I have a passenger, we can consult maps and other apps on cell phones to avail ourselves of far better information. Other, more flexible technologies were outpacing the message boards even before they could be fully deployed, and the boards are still being deployed. This is a project that might have sounded brilliant to highway engineers 20 years ago, but it represented something of a luxury relative to other needs, and it still got funded. Today, it looks like waste.

The politics of infrastructure often means that the enabling legislation gets loaded with poorly-planned projects and shiny jewels to dangle before home constituencies. Legislators are so eager to demonstrate their sophistication that they fall over themselves to approve taxpayer funds for unproven but politically-favored technologies. For example, a recent post by Warren Meyer notes the technical folly of solar roads. These are unlikely to attract much private money because they represent such a monumentally stupid idea. Proponents will go after tax money instead. The same is true of ideas like Elon Musk’s tunnel boring project, for which he hopes to collect massive taxpayer subsidies. Musk claims that tunnels will eliminate road congestion, but efficient pricing would do much to eliminate this problem without tunnels, and other technologies like automated vehicles are likely to reduce congestion by the time Musk over-invests tax money in tunnel-boring equipment, roads and hyper-loops inside tunnels.

In general, taxpayers should be wary of “green infrastructure” proposals. A large number of bike lanes, pedestrian bridges and greenways sound wonderful, but they are serious cost inflators. Federal dollars are regularly squandered on charming but wasteful projects such as trolleys. Even worse are ongoing efforts to subsidize the construction of high-speed rail systems. All of these bright ideas should be resisted.

Let’s Be Rational

The country certainly has infrastructural needs, but claims that we face a crisis are greatly exaggerated. With a new administration and what are likely to be supporting majorities in both houses of Congress, the danger of rushing into big funding commitments is heightened. The sponsors of this kind of legislation will herald massive job creation, but that is incidental to the cost side of the ledger. The benefits of individual projects should be evaluated carefully in comparison to costs. Then they can be prioritized if deemed of sufficient value. Finally, large scale deployment of unproven technologies should be avoided on the public dime.

I haven’t even mentioned one very large infrastructure project that has been proposed by President-Elect Donald Trump: the border wall. I suspect that it would be easier and less expensive to solve the problem of border security using more advanced and flexible technologies, but the permanence and symbolism of a wall appeals to many of Mr. Trump’s supporters. The benefits of a wall in terms of border security and control of immigration flows are difficult if not impossible to evaluate, as are the costs to taxpayers, with Trump promising to extract some form of payment from Mexico. The wall, however, is being “sold” to the American public in emotional terms. Come to think of it, that’s how too many other infrastructure proposals are sold by politicians!

There are promising opportunities to improve the nation’s infrastructure through the private sector, where the value of projects is subject to evaluation by parties who must put “skin in the game”. This will be addressed in my next post.