On Jul 10, 1:29 pm, "z0n0b" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Jul 10, 3:19 am, Bruce Richmond wrote: On Jul 8, 10:51 pm, Fran wrote:


Restore context:

Bruce Richmond asked:

|||
So it's not like they were asked "even if it costs you your job?" or
"even if it costs more for everything you buy?" or "even if it costs
you a lot more to heat your home?"
|||

I responded:

|||
There was no reason to ask that ... that would be push polling and it
would be based on facts not in evidence.

Would you, Bruce Richmond, oppose socialism if it meant everyone
would
be more free and a lot better off?

See what I mean by push polling?
|||

Bonzo commented:

|||
If it were anywhere near reality, of course not, but painful history
shows that it's pure fantasy on your part komrade!
|||

Which exactly makes my point. Bruce's proposed question was loaded, in
just the way I deliberately loaded the question on socialism. It
assumes facts not in evidence, or which would be controversial at best
-- so much so that even you noticed and wanted to challenge the
assumption underlying it.

There simply is no evidence that going with renewables as part of a
general program will destroy jobs or seriously push up energy costs.
It's merely a reprioritising of the kinds of economic activity which
people regard as viable or desirable. In the end though, if there are
indeed fewer jobs *on a world scale*, then this can only mean that the
jobs under the old regime were doing more harm than good, and that now
we are more efficiently meeting people's needs -- since fewer people
are needed to do the socially necessary work.

What's important is to specify accurately so that we can direct work
into areas that serve human need efficiently. It's likely for example
that if industry in major industrial economies had largely eliminated
coal combustion for power or petroleum combustion in transport that
jobs would be lost in the health sector as the health of the
population improved due to falling mercury, SO2, PM, ozone, declines
in road trauma etc. fewer kids would suffer from mercury poisoning.
There'd be less black lung disease as not as much coal would be
mined.

What do we do with all those unemployed health workers? We retrain
them to do something else useful. It's not as if there is a shortage
of useful things to do or the funds to pay them.

Fran

On Jul 10, 1:45*am, Fran wrote:
On Jul 10, 1:29 pm, "z0n0b" wrote:

"Fran" wrote in message

....
On Jul 10, 3:19 am, Bruce Richmond wrote: On Jul 8, 10:51 pm, Fran wrote:

Restore context:

Bruce Richmond asked:

|||
So it's not like they were asked "even if it costs you your job?" or
"even if it costs more for everything you buy?" or "even if it costs
you a lot more to heat your home?"
|||

I responded:

|||
There was no reason to ask that ... that would be push polling and it
would be based on facts not in evidence.

Would you, Bruce Richmond, oppose socialism if it meant everyone
would
be more free and a lot better off?

See what I mean by push polling?
|||

Bonzo commented:

|||
If it were anywhere near reality, of course not, but painful history
shows that it's pure fantasy on your part komrade!
|||

Which exactly makes my point. Bruce's proposed question was loaded, in
just the way I deliberately loaded the question on socialism. It
assumes facts not in evidence, or which would be controversial at best
-- so much so that even you noticed and wanted to challenge the
assumption underlying it.

Your question was loaded, mine was not so much. And to restore more
context:

Fran wrote:


Lots of interesting detail showing that even when presented with
arguments about job losses, most voters prefer stronger emissions
targets.

|||


You wrote the above as if people prefer stronger emissions
targets even in the face of losing their jobs. You knew that wasn't
the case since it read,


"because voters continue to believe that efforts to reduce
global warming will create rather than eliminate new American jobs."


So I was just pointing out that they were not really supporting your
crap even if it meant hardship to them.

There simply is no evidence that going with renewables as part of a
general program will destroy jobs or seriously push up energy costs.

LOL, maybe not in your dreamland but in the real world when energy
prices go up the economy takes a dive. That includes loss of jobs,
etc.

It's merely a reprioritising of the kinds of economic activity which
people regard as viable or desirable. In the end though, if there are
indeed fewer jobs *on a world scale*,

I don't give a crap about the world scale. If things go in the
crapper where I live it is bad for me. Every time energy prices have
risen it played havoc with our economy. From what I have seen wind
and solar power are significantly more expensive than other energy
sources currently available.

then this can only mean that the
jobs under the old regime were doing more harm than good, and that now
we are more efficiently meeting people's needs -- since fewer people
are needed to do the socially necessary work.

The manufacturing company I work for provides a product that the
customers need and are willing to pay for, but if we can't compete in
the global market because our energy costs go up they will find a
different manufacture. It has nothing to do with our product not
being needed. And when I lose my job I get to choose between eating
and losing my house. I might as well eat because unemployment doesn't
pay enough to make the house payments so it will be gone anyway.

What's important is to specify accurately so that we can direct work
into areas that serve human need efficiently. It's likely for example
that if industry in major industrial economies had largely eliminated
coal combustion for power or petroleum combustion in transport that
jobs would be lost in the health sector as the health of the
population improved due to falling mercury, SO2, PM, ozone, declines
in road trauma etc. fewer kids would suffer from mercury poisoning.
There'd be less black lung disease as not as much coal would be
mined.

It is more likely that the industry would move elsewhere, the workers
would lose their homes, the health of the population would go into the
toilet from living in the street and having no medical insurance after
losing their jobs. Over time those in the service sector would join
them since with nobody actually producing anything to bring money into
the area money just flows out of the area.

What do we do with all those unemployed health workers? We retrain
them to do something else useful. It's not as if there is a shortage
of useful things to do or the funds to pay them.

Fran

"or the funds to pay them." LOL, you can't keep paying them with tax
money when there is nobody earning any money to tax.