Is the Green New Deal Sustainable?
It seems like an odd question. The Green New Deal is a proposal to invest in clean energy to provide economic stimulus and good jobs, and the shift to clean energy is obviously needed to make the economy sustainable.
But I would say that the underlying assumption that the government should stimulate the economy to provide jobs is not sustainable. It has been the basic assumption of American politics since the end of World War II, but it is obviously not sustainable to stimulate the economy and promote economic growth forever.
As I have said many times, progressives ignore the underlying question of why we need economic growth to provide jobs.
New technology makes workers produce more, doing away with jobs. During the twentieth century, the amount that a worker produces in an hour increased roughly tenfold--which means that, in 2000, we would have had about 90% unemployment if we produced as much per capita as we did in 1900.
After World War II, we adopted the policy of dealing with this techological unemployment by stimulating the economy, so people would consume more and more and would keep up with the economy's capacity to produce more and more. But this is not sustainable.
Instead, we should be creating jobs by shortening work hours. If people could choose their work hours based on how much money they want to earn and spend, they we could match the amount the amount the economy produces to the amount that people want to consume - rejecting the unsustainable policy that we must make consumption keep up with productivity to avoid unemployment.
But I would say that the underlying assumption that the government should stimulate the economy to provide jobs is not sustainable. It has been the basic assumption of American politics since the end of World War II, but it is obviously not sustainable to stimulate the economy and promote economic growth forever.
As I have said many times, progressives ignore the underlying question of why we need economic growth to provide jobs.
New technology makes workers produce more, doing away with jobs. During the twentieth century, the amount that a worker produces in an hour increased roughly tenfold--which means that, in 2000, we would have had about 90% unemployment if we produced as much per capita as we did in 1900.
After World War II, we adopted the policy of dealing with this techological unemployment by stimulating the economy, so people would consume more and more and would keep up with the economy's capacity to produce more and more. But this is not sustainable.
Instead, we should be creating jobs by shortening work hours. If people could choose their work hours based on how much money they want to earn and spend, they we could match the amount the amount the economy produces to the amount that people want to consume - rejecting the unsustainable policy that we must make consumption keep up with productivity to avoid unemployment.
posted by C. Siegel at 2:37 PM
1 comments
