Green jobs have been the foundation to any of President Obama’s jobs speeches. “Building a robust clean energy sector is how we will create the jobs of the future,” he said in a speech last month. We’ve long argued that subsidizing jobs comes at the expense of others and will result in net job losses. Sunil Sharan, director of the Smart Grid Initiative at GE from 2008 to 2009, details in the Washington Post how smart metering will create jobs but destroy many more in the process:

It typically takes a team of two certified electricians half an hour to replace the old, spinning meter. In one day, two people can install about 15 new meters, or about 5,000 in a year. Were a million smart meters to be installed in a year, 400 installation jobs would be created. It follows that the planned U.S. deployment of 20 million smart meters over five years, or 4 million per year, should create 1,600 installation jobs. Unless more meters are added to the annual deployment schedule, this workforce of 1,600 should cover installation needs for the next five years.

Although a surge of new digital meters will be produced, the manufacturing process is highly automated. And with much of it accomplished overseas, net creation in domestic manufacturing jobs is expected to be only in the hundreds. In R&D and IT services, high-paying white-collar jobs are on the horizon, but as with manufacturing, the number of jobs created is forecast to be in the hundreds or low thousands. Now let’s consider job losses. It takes one worker today roughly 15 minutes to read a single meter. So in a day, a meter reader can scan about 30 meters, or about 700 meters a month. Meters are typically read once a month, making it the base period to calculate meter-reading jobs. Reading a million meters every month engages about 1,400 personnel. In five years, 20 million manually read meters are expected to disappear, taking with them some 28,000 meter-reading jobs.”

Job destruction through efficiency improvements isn’t a bad thing, but it is when the government forces it upon us. If new smart metering technologies are economically sensible, the private sector will introduce these technologies to the market. Just as the government shouldn’t attempt to create jobs, it shouldn’t protect jobs from being destroyed, either. Sharan writes, “nstead of creating jobs, smart metering will probably result in net job destruction. This should not be surprising because the main method of making the electrical grid “smart” is by automating its functions. Automation by definition obviates the need for people.” We replaced ditch diggers with mechanized agriculture equipment with the end result being a net gain in productivity and wealth. The process of creative destruction allocates capital and labor to better use, increases gains from productivity and makes us all better off. Using stimulus money for smart metering is unnecessary if it such a good idea.

The other way the government can destroy jobs through a clean energy initiative is to mandate and subsidize labor intensive, inefficient, and expensive power sources. If it takes more labor and capital to produce renewable energy, there is a net drain on the economy. Government spending will create some jobs to build windmills and solar panels and work at biomass plants but this diverts labor, capital and materials from the private sector that could be used more efficiently to create even more jobs

An Institute for Energy Research-commissioned study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid by Gabriel Calzada found that, for every green job created, 2.2 jobs in other sectors have been destroyed. Furthermore, Spain’s government spent $758,471 to create each green job and used $36 billion in taxpayer money to invest in wind, solar, and mini-hydro from 2000-2008. The country’s unemployment rate is currently at 19.4%.

Losing jobs through increases in efficiency and productivity is a sign of progress. Losing jobs through government mandates and subsidies is a sign of Congress.

Search and advertising giant Google plans to build and test super fast fiber-optic broadband networks in a few communities around the U.S., promising up to a one gigabit per second service — a hundred-fold increase over what most Americans currently can subscribe to.

A 1 Gbps could let a user download a HD movie in minutes and is more than 1000 times faster than AT&T’s basic DSL offering.

The company, whose experience running a ISP is limited to a small, free wireless service in its hometown of MountainView, California, called the intiative an “experiment” in keeping with what it urged the FCC to do with its upcoming national broadband plan. The company is asking municipalities to apply to be candidates and said it will offer a competitively priced service to 50,000 to a half a million people.

Our goal is to experiment with new ways to help make Internet access better and faster for everyone. Here are some specific things that we have in mind:

Next generation apps: We want to see what developers and users can do with ultra high-speeds, whether it’s creating new bandwidth-intensive “killer apps” and services, or other uses we can’t yet imagine.

New deployment techniques: We’ll test new ways to build fiber networks, and to help inform and support deployments elsewhere, we’ll share key lessons learned with the world.

Openness and choice: We’ll operate an “open access” network, giving users the choice of multiple service providers. And consistent with our past advocacy, we’ll manage our network in an open, non-discriminatory and transparent way.

The announcement is not good news for the nation’s ISPs, which have long had a sour relationship with Google. Although Google interconnects with networks just as any other participant in the internet does, ISPs — including AT&T — have complained that Google properties such as Youtube should pay more to ride on their networks.

For its part, Google sees high ISP subscription fees and the U.S.’s slow connection speeds as hindrances to more profits. In the simplest equation, the more people who are online and the faster their connection, the more money Google makes from little text ads on the net. Any company who wants to make money anywhere between a user and an online ad has to fear that Google will try to drive the profits out of its business, whether that be a hardware vendor, a software company like Microsoft or an internet service provider.

Google is doing at least three things here:

1) It’s demonstrating to the public and to regulators that really fast broadband isn’t nearly as hard as companies like AT&T and Verizon pretend it is.

2) It’s sending a warning to large telecoms that they better start working to reduce prices and increase service or they might face a competitor they dont’ want to go up against, and

3) By partnering with municpalities, it’s learning/showing the nation how to bypass the current dominant telecom players by creating municipally-owned fiber infrastructure that can be rented to multiple service providers, who can then duke it out on price and service. If successful, that could create a model where Google uses its huge cash surplus to finance municipally-owned fiber optic networks, undermining its telecom rivals and speeding up the nation’s internet without ever having to run a consumer-grade network or learn how to do customer support.

If I were an executive at a large ISP, I’d be very unhappy with Google’s announcement. When Google enters a market, it usually destroys traditional ways of making money. ISPs want to find ways to measure internet traffic, and charge users by levels — even as their own upstream bandwidth costs continue to plummet. The rhetoric used to justify those decisions to consumer and lawmakers just won’t hold up if there’s an fairly priced, all-Fiber 1 Gbps connection just down the road.

Which is just the long way of saying that in a land where it costs “$35 a month to get an assymetric, slow DSL line that tops out at 1.5 Mbps, perhaps those traditional profits need to be destroyed.

Or even shorter — All hail Shiva the Destroyer.

Photo: Alice Popkorn

See Also:

• YouTube’s Bandwidth Bill Is Zero. Welcome to the New Net
• Broadband Providers Suck. Can Google Help?
• New Google Tools Determine if Your ISP Is Blocking BitTorrent
• Google Hunts for Undersea Fiber Capacity as Traffic Surges
• Google’s Submarine Cable Plans Get Official

Introduction Making money online is practically everyone's dream. However, just like starting a brick and mortar business, it isn't going to be easy. There are a lot of people out there trying to capitalize on your dreams and make money from you in your desperate attempts to figure out how to earn money online. We've written this mini guide to help you avoid scams, know what to look for, and what it takes to earn money online. There are many legit and many not-so-legit ways of making money online. Some are expensive, some are low cost. We're going to explore each one. However, be warned that there may be laws in your local area that require you to have a special license for selling via online. Because this is beyond our expertise, you will have to check out your local business center for more information about required licenses and registration. Legit Ways of Making Money Online The best and most legit ways of making money online are to explore reseller programs, turnkey and affiliate programs. Both ways require time and energy to get off the ground. Have no fear, we are here! Reseller Programs Reseller programs are basically companies who provide a product or service and allow you to resell their inventory in smaller parts enabling you to earn a profit from them. You can have physical inventory or you can have services to promote. The good thing about reseller programs is that most will provide the customer service for you. Some will even allow you to co-brand your logo or name seamlessly into their product or service. Some popular reseller programs are: • Hosting: ResellersPanel.com, Host Gator, APlus.net • Domain Names: Wild West Domains, Enom, Tucows • Software: Cisco Systems Affiliate Programs These types of programs normally pay you per sale or per click. For each lead you send the company, you will get paid a commission. These types of programs are good if you have a lot of traffic going to your website or if you network with a lot of people. Here are some websites that list available affiliate programs: • Commission Junction • Affiliate Guide Some popular affiliate programs: • Ebay • Google Adsense Turnkey Websites Turnkey websites are websites that are ready to go, all you have to do is “turn the key”. The majority of turnkey companies will allow you to co-brand your logo, set your own prices, provide your customers with support, include web hosting and a domain name. The downside is you may not have much control over the site content, display, colors and layout. Turnkey companies: • Wild West Domains Not-So-Legit Ways There are some misleading ways to make money online. Some ways are scams, others make it impossible for you to earn a decent return. The most common scams are: • working from home • multi-level marketing (also called MLM) • investing Of course, just being labeled these things does not mean they are not legit. But you should be wary. If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. What To Look For Avoiding online scams means educating yourself about what to look for. Here are some things you can do to protect yourself. Simple Searching Search engines are powerful resource providers. Enter the URL or name of the business into the search engine and see what comes up. Better Business Bureau Research BBB.org to see if any complaints were filed against the company. If they do have complaints, see if the company attempted to resolve them and in what amount of time. Remember, just because a company doesn't have a record with BBB, it doesn't mean they have a satisfactory customer base. The Fine Print This has to be the most common mistake people tend to make: overlooking the fine print. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Read the fine print in user/buyer agreements. Look for any discrepancies and compare them to what they say versus what they actually provide. Ask questions. Conclusion Judge each opportunity you come across with skepticism and a closed wallet. Ask questions and tons of them. Good luck and may you have many profitable years ahead!

Green jobs have been the foundation to any of President Obama’s jobs speeches. “Building a robust clean energy sector is how we will create the jobs of the future,” he said in a speech last month. We’ve long argued that subsidizing jobs comes at the expense of others and will result in net job losses. Sunil Sharan, director of the Smart Grid Initiative at GE from 2008 to 2009, details in the Washington Post how smart metering will create jobs but destroy many more in the process:

It typically takes a team of two certified electricians half an hour to replace the old, spinning meter. In one day, two people can install about 15 new meters, or about 5,000 in a year. Were a million smart meters to be installed in a year, 400 installation jobs would be created. It follows that the planned U.S. deployment of 20 million smart meters over five years, or 4 million per year, should create 1,600 installation jobs. Unless more meters are added to the annual deployment schedule, this workforce of 1,600 should cover installation needs for the next five years.

Although a surge of new digital meters will be produced, the manufacturing process is highly automated. And with much of it accomplished overseas, net creation in domestic manufacturing jobs is expected to be only in the hundreds. In R&D and IT services, high-paying white-collar jobs are on the horizon, but as with manufacturing, the number of jobs created is forecast to be in the hundreds or low thousands. Now let’s consider job losses. It takes one worker today roughly 15 minutes to read a single meter. So in a day, a meter reader can scan about 30 meters, or about 700 meters a month. Meters are typically read once a month, making it the base period to calculate meter-reading jobs. Reading a million meters every month engages about 1,400 personnel. In five years, 20 million manually read meters are expected to disappear, taking with them some 28,000 meter-reading jobs.”

Job destruction through efficiency improvements isn’t a bad thing, but it is when the government forces it upon us. If new smart metering technologies are economically sensible, the private sector will introduce these technologies to the market. Just as the government shouldn’t attempt to create jobs, it shouldn’t protect jobs from being destroyed, either. Sharan writes, “nstead of creating jobs, smart metering will probably result in net job destruction. This should not be surprising because the main method of making the electrical grid “smart” is by automating its functions. Automation by definition obviates the need for people.” We replaced ditch diggers with mechanized agriculture equipment with the end result being a net gain in productivity and wealth. The process of creative destruction allocates capital and labor to better use, increases gains from productivity and makes us all better off. Using stimulus money for smart metering is unnecessary if it such a good idea.

The other way the government can destroy jobs through a clean energy initiative is to mandate and subsidize labor intensive, inefficient, and expensive power sources. If it takes more labor and capital to produce renewable energy, there is a net drain on the economy. Government spending will create some jobs to build windmills and solar panels and work at biomass plants but this diverts labor, capital and materials from the private sector that could be used more efficiently to create even more jobs

An Institute for Energy Research-commissioned study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid by Gabriel Calzada found that, for every green job created, 2.2 jobs in other sectors have been destroyed. Furthermore, Spain’s government spent $758,471 to create each green job and used $36 billion in taxpayer money to invest in wind, solar, and mini-hydro from 2000-2008. The country’s unemployment rate is currently at 19.4%.

Losing jobs through increases in efficiency and productivity is a sign of progress. Losing jobs through government mandates and subsidies is a sign of Congress.

Search and advertising giant Google plans to build and test super fast fiber-optic broadband networks in a few communities around the U.S., promising up to a one gigabit per second service — a hundred-fold increase over what most Americans currently can subscribe to.

A 1 Gbps could let a user download a HD movie in minutes and is more than 1000 times faster than AT&T’s basic DSL offering.

The company, whose experience running a ISP is limited to a small, free wireless service in its hometown of MountainView, California, called the intiative an “experiment” in keeping with what it urged the FCC to do with its upcoming national broadband plan. The company is asking municipalities to apply to be candidates and said it will offer a competitively priced service to 50,000 to a half a million people.

Our goal is to experiment with new ways to help make Internet access better and faster for everyone. Here are some specific things that we have in mind:

Next generation apps: We want to see what developers and users can do with ultra high-speeds, whether it’s creating new bandwidth-intensive “killer apps” and services, or other uses we can’t yet imagine.

New deployment techniques: We’ll test new ways to build fiber networks, and to help inform and support deployments elsewhere, we’ll share key lessons learned with the world.

Openness and choice: We’ll operate an “open access” network, giving users the choice of multiple service providers. And consistent with our past advocacy, we’ll manage our network in an open, non-discriminatory and transparent way.

The announcement is not good news for the nation’s ISPs, which have long had a sour relationship with Google. Although Google interconnects with networks just as any other participant in the internet does, ISPs — including AT&T — have complained that Google properties such as Youtube should pay more to ride on their networks.

For its part, Google sees high ISP subscription fees and the U.S.’s slow connection speeds as hindrances to more profits. In the simplest equation, the more people who are online and the faster their connection, the more money Google makes from little text ads on the net. Any company who wants to make money anywhere between a user and an online ad has to fear that Google will try to drive the profits out of its business, whether that be a hardware vendor, a software company like Microsoft or an internet service provider.

Google is doing at least three things here:

1) It’s demonstrating to the public and to regulators that really fast broadband isn’t nearly as hard as companies like AT&T and Verizon pretend it is.

2) It’s sending a warning to large telecoms that they better start working to reduce prices and increase service or they might face a competitor they dont’ want to go up against, and

3) By partnering with municpalities, it’s learning/showing the nation how to bypass the current dominant telecom players by creating municipally-owned fiber infrastructure that can be rented to multiple service providers, who can then duke it out on price and service. If successful, that could create a model where Google uses its huge cash surplus to finance municipally-owned fiber optic networks, undermining its telecom rivals and speeding up the nation’s internet without ever having to run a consumer-grade network or learn how to do customer support.

If I were an executive at a large ISP, I’d be very unhappy with Google’s announcement. When Google enters a market, it usually destroys traditional ways of making money. ISPs want to find ways to measure internet traffic, and charge users by levels — even as their own upstream bandwidth costs continue to plummet. The rhetoric used to justify those decisions to consumer and lawmakers just won’t hold up if there’s an fairly priced, all-Fiber 1 Gbps connection just down the road.

Which is just the long way of saying that in a land where it costs “$35 a month to get an assymetric, slow DSL line that tops out at 1.5 Mbps, perhaps those traditional profits need to be destroyed.

Or even shorter — All hail Shiva the Destroyer.

Photo: Alice Popkorn

See Also:

• YouTube’s Bandwidth Bill Is Zero. Welcome to the New Net
• Broadband Providers Suck. Can Google Help?
• New Google Tools Determine if Your ISP Is Blocking BitTorrent
• Google Hunts for Undersea Fiber Capacity as Traffic Surges
• Google’s Submarine Cable Plans Get Official

bill bartmann on making forensic mortgage audit established franchises for sale, existing franchises for sale, low cost franchises sale franchises for sale online stock trading