Economists Document Kansas City Plant as Job Loser
In Support of Initiative for November 8 Ballot
Contacts:
Local – Ann Suellentrop, 913-271-7925
Report Authors – Dr. Lloyd Jeff Dumas and Dr. Teresa D. Nelson, 972-394-4637
While proponents of the new plant to produce nuclear weapons components cite its jobs as the major motive behind city financial involvement in the plant, the same resources spent on sounder investments would create more jobs – therefore, we are losing the jobs we would have were the city to use the same resources in a more prudent way.
This argument has long been made by proponents of the initiative, “Nuclear Weapons Components Production Prohibited” (currently awaiting City Council approval for placing on the ballot, which should happen by the deadline of August 30). We have commissioned experts in economics to document this point: Dr. Teresa D. Nelson and Dr. Lloyd J. Dumas. Lloyd J. Dumas is Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Texas at Dallas (web page: http://www.utdallas.edu/~ljdumas/). Teresa D. Nelson is an independent researcher and consultant with a Ph.D. in Public Policy and Political Economy from the University of Texas at Dallas. Their report can be accessed here. Any journalist who will be covering this election campaign this fall will need to be familiar with this report.
For the summary version, the authors report:
“Our general findings indicate that renewable energy, energy efficiency, and infrastructure products are not only likely to have much bigger and more buoyant future markets than nuclear weapons, but also that they would be considerably more effective in generating jobs for the economy of Kansas City and its environs. . . . It is always tempting to the cautious investor to invest in those economic activities that have seemed a safe bet in the past. But investment is an inherently forward-looking activity. One of the surest ways to lose is getting stuck in the past, rather than looking to the future. It is in the spirit of helping to avoid that fate that we present this report.”
The report documents
· Why nuclear weapons are such a poor investment – the market has always been restricted to one customer; people who used to advocate for them are now advocating their abolition; and federal budget pressures are intense.
· Why renewable energy and similar projects are foreseeable as a far more profitable market.
· Why the five buildings of the current plant, well underway in construction, are technically suitable to these alternative uses.
· They calculated the job-multiplier effect for nuclear weapons components production compared with various alternatives, showing that the nuclear weapons option has by far the lowest multiplier effect – authors explain why and provide color charts; see pages 22 and 25.
The real crux of the issue is whether making new nuclear weapons at this point aids or threatens our security. If they are necessary for defense, we may need to sacrifice our resources and have fewer jobs than we would otherwise. If they are either unnecessary or actually harmful, then the job loss in addition becomes doubly tragic.
