March 2, 2009 5:10 PM
- Text
Will Biden's "Green Jobs" Really Pay Over $100,000?
(AP PHOTO)
One comment that the vice president made is worth highlighting. Workers who made $20 an hour before a green jobs training program can make $50 an hour after, Biden said.
If true, that would be pretty remarkable. A job that pays $50 an hour pays roughly $104,000 a year. That's a handsome salary, especially as layoffs are rising and the economy is shrinking.
Biden said: "In L.A. there is electrical training (through) a labor-management partnership, jointly sponsored by a union in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and a business coalition of private contractors... In some of these programs, apprentices can be making $20 an hour; when they graduate, they can be making as much as $50 an hour in some of these undertakings."
A 33-page report that the White House released on Friday lists these as "green" occupations: electricians who install solar panels; plumbers who install solar water heaters; farmers engaged in organic agriculture and some bio-fuel production; and construction workers who build energy-efficient green buildings, wind power farms, solar farms and wave energy farms. (The report also expresses confidence that "green jobs are more likely to be union jobs than other jobs.")
It seems a bit unlikely that those occupations will necessarily yield so-called green jobs that pay six-figure salaries. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics says that construction workers averaged $40,000 a year. Plumbers made a median salary of $42,700 a year.
Will plumbers be able to make 2.5 times their current salary by installing solar water heaters instead of electric- or gas-powered water heaters? Does building "green" buildings (using different materials or installing high-efficiency windows and insulation) pay 2.5 as much?
Probably not. Later in his speech, Biden said: "According to the president's... Council of Economic Advisers, green jobs will pay 10 to 20 percent more than other jobs of a similar nature; 10 to 20 percent more."
It would be useful to review the assumptions behind even that estimate. Still, it's probably significantly closer to reality.
-
Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site.
Follow on Twitter »
Latest Now in MoneyWatch
- Insurers respond cautiously to contraceptive plan
- Judge: Legally, breastfeeding not related to pregnancy
- Budget deficit drops to $27 billion in January
- Why the Powerball Jackpot is part of my investment strategy
- Is the new VW Beetle diesel worth the money?
- Consumer sentiment highlights risks to recovery
- Valentine blues? 10 best cities to be single
- December trade deficit widens to $48.8 billion
- Alcatel-Lucent returns to profit in 2011
- 6 things never to say in a performance review
- $26B mortgage deal: Who gets the money?
- Friendly's CEO steps down
- Quarterly loss hits $3.3B at Postal Service
- Greeks rail against cuts as EU demands more
- 6 things you should never share on Facebook
- Make moves now to increase financial aid
- Valentine's Day: 9 places to save
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook
on CBS News
- How Jason Wu picks models, tweaks looks for runway
- Libertine Fashion Week show big on embellishment
- Libertine Fashion Week show big on embellishment
- Huge art work honoring Havel on display in Prague
on Facebook
- Adele sings a cappella for Anderson Cooper
- Adele sings a cappella for Anderson Cooper
- Beyonce and Jay-Z post first photos of Blue Ivy Carter
on CBS News
