But it also cites a National Association of Colleges and Employers report that says the class of 2010 will see a 7% decline in new hires compared to the class of 2009.

“Given the state of the economy, and the state of the job market, many young people are getting the push they needed to become entrepreneurs,” says Bo Fishback, vice president of entrepreneurship at the Kauffman Foundation, a nonprofit organization that promotes entrepreneurs. “It’s a lot easier to decide to launch your own company when there aren’t a lot of jobs out there.”

The article also mentions different training options for young entrepreneurs, including the Kauffman Foundation’s FastTrac, a 10-week boot camp offered across the US.

Third Observation: It Needs to Be Data-Driven

In the United States, we have a huge amount of data at our disposal for development decisions. Our nation has over 1,800 (and counting) well-established industry codes (NAICS codes) that are standardized for the entire country. The 20 big industry sectors that compose our economy exist because of broad, long-lasting, nationwide demand. The data that are collected around these industries are highly useful for local and regional planning. Local developers can be expected to be both “demand-driven” and “data-driven” because these data are publicly available and because more and more technologies are being developed to help regional planners organize, integrate, and apply this information. This basically means that developers can focus in on what aspects of the economy create jobs, and they can do it in a very well-researched, objective manner (avoiding simply anecdotal reactions such as, “I think we should develop the entertainment industry”). The data help developers do things like determine which industries (or industry clusters) they should focus on, and it provides them with a very solid, well-defined structure on which to base important training, skills, and economic development decisions.

Currently, regional developers are just beginning to learn how to take advantage of this information to make the planning process more strategic and more objective. As a result, the US has an enormous competitive advantage over other nations that can only plan based on what they think might work. And when these data are harnessed and used to focus in on the most crucial sectors of a region, that is when communities, planners, and businesses can all be on the same page and see which direction makes the most sense in the context of the regional economy.

Our point here is that right now, local developers cannot take such a well-researched, data-driven approach to “green.” There are a lot of people who are highly in favor of green, but in many ways, they don’t bring the sort of objectivity that is needed or helpful when trying to hash things out for the sake of the local workforce. What if green actually isn’t a good idea for a specific community? Something like Biotech is great if you can have it, but if it’s not the right fit for the community, forcing it can be a bad thing.

Conclusion:

Getting data and conducting local analysis on green is not easy or even that feasible yet. EMSI has been doing some work with O*NET data that you can check out here. This data should give you a good sense of what industries and occupations are going to be most closely associated with green development efforts. The biggest thing you can do is to be out in the community, talking to local businesses and meeting with investors who might be trying to establish green developments in your area. Their input and perspective are likely going to be the most effective way for the workforce and education systems to respond to the potential needs of a community.

Final Remark

So here is the basic conclusion. For green to work at the local level, it needs to be demand-driven. It needs to be harmonized with local development efforts, and it must complement and not fight against regional economies. This means helping and not hurting local industries, not overburdening regions with too much regulation, and allowing regional developers to stay focused on longer-term efforts as opposed to short-term trends. Next, at the national level, green needs to mature before we can make massive efforts to supply it. There might be needs in various regions, but in many ways, green is still rolling up the on-ramp—trying to pick up speed.

Do we want green to succeed? Well, sure. Green in many ways is trying to become the new “Red, White, and Blue”—meaning it’s more of a way-of-life issue that encapsulates living in a smarter, cleaner, more efficient way. Therefore, we all want these sorts of ideals to come to fruition. We want energy to be cheaper and cleaner, we want the environment to be better off, and we want our products and services to be more sustainable. However, as the polls show, we don’t want these things at the expense of economic growth. All this is to say that people are going to be more supportive of the green movement insofar as it can hold itself to its own standard of sustainability—economic sustainability. The green movement and economic considerations are not mutually exclusive. If the economy continues to suffer, the green movement will suffer. If the economy recovers, there will be renewed interest in being “green.” Before the economy took a nosedive, green was the direction that people wanted to take, and we imagine it will be again once the economy gets to its feet again.

If you have thoughts and things you would like to add, please feel free to contact us. We would love to hear from you. In addition, if you need help looking at what sectors drive your economy and how “green” developments might impact those sectors, please let us know.

Rob Sentz (rob@economicmodeling.com).

Second Observation: “Policy” Versus “Environment”

Right now, the primary struggles with green development seem to come from: (1) actually understanding what “green” is and (2) knowing which industries people need to be prepared for. In many ways, this might be because green is happening according to a top-down, policy driven approach rather than an industry driven one. In the U.S. we often see industry development happening from the ground up (e.g., from the local level and up to the national level). Industries develop hubs of production (e.g., Silicon Valley, the Research Triangle, and the Rust Belt) and regions tend to develop specialization based on being more competitive at producing and exporting something that is demanded by the larger economy. This in turn produces a need for a specific skill and knowledge set and so on. Green jobs don’t really work this way. The “greening” of our economy has sprouted from a particular set of ideas (global warming, overpopulation, etc.); books have been written (Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Green Recovery, etc.); and policies have been shaped based on these ideas (carbon reduction, green jobs). Now money is being collected (via the ARRA) and pushed to regions in order to implement the ideas.

As is often the case, it is not particularly easy to translate the broad rhetoric, concepts, and policy (things like “clean tech”) into local industries, impacts, skills, training programs, and demand. At the local level, it is also incredibly difficult to assess present “green” realities, let alone to project future trends of what jobs and industries will begin to thrive or fail. Those who try to use such national predictions to implement new regional training programs or develop local policies could find themselves in hot water should their programs not result in tangible benefits to the region. In a recession folks need and want jobs (in some cases, any job will do), and discussions about how something like clean tech is going to be the next big thing can be really frustrating (think “dot-com” bubble).

Finally, a big part of the frustration around green jobs actually comes down to semantics. Let’s try to unpack that a bit. Politicians and news anchors often refer to green jobs as some sort of new “industry.” To a regional developer this is a little misleading because in regional development the term industry more correctly refers to a set of businesses that produce a specific set of goods and services. As a result, when we are talking about industries we are really much more concerned about “what” is being produced. Green development seems much more interested in “how” things are produced. It’s a nuance that needs to be understood because it creates a lot of confusion.

Here is a thought experiment: let’s imagine you have two tire manufacturers. One produces tires using traditional “non-green” methods and the other uses recycled materials and can be classified as “green.” At the end of the day are they both manufacturing tires? Well, yes of course. Should they be understood as being part of different industries? No. Both of these companies also likely employ the same sort of people, use the same sort of equipment, and have similar sales and supply chains. Also, from a training/workforce development perspective these industries are going to look pretty identical–with maybe a few minor skills differences. Seen from this angle, green is not actually about creating a new industry sector in either a general or specific sense. Rather, it’s more about changing and retooling all existing industry sectors (check out this article by Andrew Shapiro on CNN) to make them operate differently.

Conclusion

Regional economic strategies have to work in regional economic frameworks. And the time frame for regional development (e.g. 30 weeks, 30 months, and sometimes 30) years) is much different than a politician’s framework (e.g. 30 second soundbites, 30 minute stump speeches, and 4 year terms). Also, it should be understood that in regional workforce and economic development, the most difficult thing to do is to adapt the environment to the species. You could say, “Every region should have wetlands,” and pump water into a desert to make wetlands, but how long can you sustain it and at what expense? Development needs to make sense in the context of a region and not the other way around. Ultimately, bending the rules of economics (like laws of ecology) can be done, but not for long.

As we have said before, it is imperative to gain an understanding of local industry activity and demand. If you know what your region’s industries are doing and are up against, you can also be helpful in instructing practitioners on green policy and the skills needs they might have. Regions can do well with green developments, but it’s going to come down to understanding how the current industry mix fits to the movement,  harmonizing national policy with regional need, and operating within reasonable time frames.

Click here for Third Observation and Final Remark

First Observation: Chasing Trends Versus Being Demand Driven

Imagine that for the past 20 years you have been laboring under the hood of your region’s economy, working with local industries, educators, and other leaders to craft better strategies, develop the workforce, and encourage business in the region. Let’s also say that a lot of the folks you have been working with represent companies and industries that have been around for a long time, and thus are extremely well established and represent large numbers of jobs and earnings for the region.

Now, if you remember, during the ’90s there was this thing called the “dot-com bubble.” Dot-coms grabbed a lot of attention all over the country and were generally accepted as being the next big thing. As a result, many regional developers tried to get into the game, and some failed miserably. When the bubble burst, many were left empty-handed and embarrassed that they had essentially just wasted a lot of the public’s time, energy, and money on something that they frankly didn’t understand or have any real reason (in a regional context) to be pursuing. In addition, local stakeholders (e.g., business leaders) most likely had a hint of “told-you-so” about the whole thing and were a bit irritated that their own business interests were overshadowed by some “Johnny-come-lately.” The pain of that sort of lesson sticks and taught developers to be skeptical of trends that could lead the community down the wrong development path. In more recent times we have seen the mortgage bubble burst, and a lot of people are wary of any sort of fast trend full of great promises.

As a result, many are more willing to take a wait-and-see attitude before they start investing public resources toward something new. In some ways, this is where we are with green. So its not all that surprising that green is being met with skepticism by some local planners, who can and should be rigorously dedicated to spending their dollars wisely and only on things that will advance their region’s businesses and people. This dedication seems to come from the fact that:

1. The mission statements of things like community colleges, workforce boards, and economic development organizations are essentially to be “demand-driven” and in touch with needs of the local community,
2. When you live and work in a specific community, you actually begin to identify with its needs and interests. These needs and interests can and will run strong (think of the Rust Belt or communities that depend on agriculture), and
3. Much of the motivation for regional development can be traced back to the needs of local industry. The activities, interests, and employment of local industries directly and indirectly drive much of the employment and earnings in an area (the concept of an economic base). This is where many colleges and workforce boards are focused.

Now, the basic problem with making something like a workforce board invest its resources into an emerging sector or a new policy, such as green, is that there simply isn’t the demand, the number of jobs, or the background to justify the efforts. Workforce boards tend to focus on the thickest part of the pyramid, and as industries grow and start to offer more opportunities, workforce professionals can begin to focus and justify their efforts. This is why WIBs and community colleges typically focus on sectors like manufacturing and health care. There are many companies, a lot of demand, and tons of middle-skilled jobs to be had. In a recent blog post, we explored the top job openings by occupations for three major metros. Across the board, we found that the greatest need was for computer specialists, nurses, accountants, software engineers, sales and marketing managers, and customer service reps—not exactly green jobs. These are areas that workforce professional will tend to focus.

Conclusion:

Trends will come and go, and the challenge for the regional developer is to evaluate what makes the most sense for the region. Local planners should therefore understand what sectors “drive” the economy, and they should become familiar with how policies and spending plans might impact those industries. It is also important to determine how current development efforts can be augmented or supported by the green movement. If green policy is going to have a big impact on the economic drivers in the economy, then it’s going to be important to be familiar with “how.” Finally, familiarity with green policy will help local business leaders who might also be confused or concerned about the issue.

Click here for Second Observation

The first table (2-A) deals with “green increased demand” occupations, as classified by the O*NET Resource Center, for the Transportation cluster; the second table (2-B) relates to “green enhanced skills” occupations for the same cluster.

Click on the tables for a full-sized image

Findings:

• The second table in this cluster clearly represents the higher-wage (correlating to higher skill) occupations. Aerospace engineers ($43.31/hour) and Electronics engineers ($40.40) stand out in particular, though both have seen a dip in job numbers.
• The precipitous drop in truck driving positions is startling — more than 133,000 drivers have lost their job since 2007. At more than 1.8 million, however, Truck drivers still make up the biggest chunk of the Transportation cluster.
• Most of growth in this sector comes from occupations that are composed of fairly few workers, namely Railroad conductors and Locomotive Engineers.

For Sector 3 data, click here

The first table (3-A) deals with “green increased demand” occupations, as classified by the O*NET Resource Center, for the  Energy Efficiency cluster; the second table (3-B) relates to “green enhanced skills” occupations for the same cluster.

Click on the tables for a full-sized image

Findings:

• Nearly all the growth for this sector is focused in occupations that require, on average, a Bachelor’s degree. Even with those jobs in mind, the outlook has only been so-so, particularly with Financial analysts, Training and development specialists, etc.
• All the “increased demand” occupations in Table 3-A have on-the-job training as the standard education level.
• When it comes to energy efficiency, it’s not a surprise to see Electrical power-line installers in the cluster. It happens to be the healthiest occupation of the bunch, with 8% growth from 2007-2009.

For Sector 4 data, click here

The first table (4-A) deals with “green increased demand” occupations, as classified by O*NET Resource Center, for the Green Construction cluster; the second table (4-B) relates to “green enhanced skills” occupations for the same cluster.

Click on the tables for a full-sized image

Findings:

• The losses seen in this cluster are widespread: every occupation in Table 4-A has shown decline except for Boilermakers. Construction laborers and carpenters have shed over 400,000 positions since 2007.
• For the most part, the wages for the Green Construction cluster are noticeably lower than other clusters. This is partly due to the more low-skill labor associated with the construction. Even in Table 4-B, which focuses on occupations with enhanced skills, the average is $20.43 per hour.
• A bright spot comes from Urban and regional planners and Power plant operators, both of which have shot up in growth pretty substantially. Urban planners require a Master’s degree on average, while Power plant operators need quite a bit of real-world training.

For sector 6 data, click here

The table deals with “green enhanced skills” occupations, as classified by the O*NET Resource Center, for the Energy and Carbon Capture and Storage cluster.

Click on the table for a full-sized image

Findings:

• Unlike the other clusters, there are no reported jobs/occupations based on O*NET research classified as “green increased demand” relating to the capture or storage or energy and carbon.
• When replacement jobs are considered, the lone occupation in this cluster, Power plant operators, has fared pretty well with 10% growth and median hourly earnings of $26.72.

 For sector 7 data, click here

The first table (7-A) deals with “green increased demand” occupations, as classified by O*NET, for the Research, Design, and Consulting Services cluster; the second table (4-B) relates to “green enhanced skills” occupations for the same cluster.

Click on the tables for a full-sized image

Findings:

• In the O*NET report, this cluster is described as encompassing “‘indirect jobs’ to the green economy and includes activities such as energy consulting or research and other related business services.” Clearly, this cluster has a far-ranging scope, with occupations as diverse as Reporters and correspondents to Atmospheric and space scientists.
• The first table, 7-A, has a heavy dose of occupations that require at least a Bachelor’s degree. Many of those occupations are showing growth when new and replacement jobs are factored in.

For Sector 8 data, click here

The first table (8-A) deals with “green increased demand” occupations, as classified by O*NET, for the Environment Protection cluster; the second table (8-B) relates to “green enhanced skills” occupations for the same cluster.

Click on the tables for a full-sized image

Findings:

• According to O*NET, this sector “covers activities related to the environmental remediation, climate change adaption, and ensuring or enhancing air quality.” Hence, it’s not a surprise to see very science-specific occupations in this cluster.
• Almost across the board there’s job growth in Table 8-A. The biggest jump has been made by Forest and conservation technicians, which has made a 13% leap. However, earnings for the fast-growing occupation are just $15.22 per hour.

For sector 9 data, click here