Abstract
In the April 1979 issue of Energy Manager, Dr. David Elliott of Open University says capital-intensive systems employ less labor per unit of output, concluding that nuclear energy represented a poor bargain in terms of money invested per job created. Responding to this earlier article, Dr. Brookes argues that capital-intensive systems may employ less labor per unit of output, but they also produce more output and income per worker. Dr. Brookes uses a simple analysis to illustrate how progress results by increasing capital investment and disagrees strongly with Elliotts conclusions - says output must become more capital-intensive to provide more employment opportunities. Further, he feels that Elliott and other antinuclear and environmentalist writers have fallen into the trap of the fallacy of composition - assuming that what is true for a small number of constituent parts taken singly is true also for the total system taken as a whole. Examples can be found in economics of microeconomic elements which do not add up to the expected macroeconomic composition, which explains why some capital-intensive strategies are good and others are not. The excess income produced by capital-intensive energy strategies supports the service and public administration sectors. 3 figures, 1 table. (DCK)
Citation Formats
Brookes, L G.
Nuclear energy = more jobs. [Capital-intensive vs labor-intensive systems].
United Kingdom: N. p.,
1979.
Web.
Brookes, L G.
Nuclear energy = more jobs. [Capital-intensive vs labor-intensive systems].
United Kingdom.
Brookes, L G.
1979.
"Nuclear energy = more jobs. [Capital-intensive vs labor-intensive systems]."
United Kingdom.
@misc{etde_5284008,
title = {Nuclear energy = more jobs. [Capital-intensive vs labor-intensive systems]}
author = {Brookes, L G}
abstractNote = {In the April 1979 issue of Energy Manager, Dr. David Elliott of Open University says capital-intensive systems employ less labor per unit of output, concluding that nuclear energy represented a poor bargain in terms of money invested per job created. Responding to this earlier article, Dr. Brookes argues that capital-intensive systems may employ less labor per unit of output, but they also produce more output and income per worker. Dr. Brookes uses a simple analysis to illustrate how progress results by increasing capital investment and disagrees strongly with Elliotts conclusions - says output must become more capital-intensive to provide more employment opportunities. Further, he feels that Elliott and other antinuclear and environmentalist writers have fallen into the trap of the fallacy of composition - assuming that what is true for a small number of constituent parts taken singly is true also for the total system taken as a whole. Examples can be found in economics of microeconomic elements which do not add up to the expected macroeconomic composition, which explains why some capital-intensive strategies are good and others are not. The excess income produced by capital-intensive energy strategies supports the service and public administration sectors. 3 figures, 1 table. (DCK)}
journal = []
volume = {2:6}
journal type = {AC}
place = {United Kingdom}
year = {1979}
month = {Jul}
}
title = {Nuclear energy = more jobs. [Capital-intensive vs labor-intensive systems]}
author = {Brookes, L G}
abstractNote = {In the April 1979 issue of Energy Manager, Dr. David Elliott of Open University says capital-intensive systems employ less labor per unit of output, concluding that nuclear energy represented a poor bargain in terms of money invested per job created. Responding to this earlier article, Dr. Brookes argues that capital-intensive systems may employ less labor per unit of output, but they also produce more output and income per worker. Dr. Brookes uses a simple analysis to illustrate how progress results by increasing capital investment and disagrees strongly with Elliotts conclusions - says output must become more capital-intensive to provide more employment opportunities. Further, he feels that Elliott and other antinuclear and environmentalist writers have fallen into the trap of the fallacy of composition - assuming that what is true for a small number of constituent parts taken singly is true also for the total system taken as a whole. Examples can be found in economics of microeconomic elements which do not add up to the expected macroeconomic composition, which explains why some capital-intensive strategies are good and others are not. The excess income produced by capital-intensive energy strategies supports the service and public administration sectors. 3 figures, 1 table. (DCK)}
journal = []
volume = {2:6}
journal type = {AC}
place = {United Kingdom}
year = {1979}
month = {Jul}
}