Salaries at solar and wind companies are lower than you think.

Now, if the Obama administration decides to add stipulations to federal money, in effect, forcing green companies to accept unionization or implement wage requirements, then the political battle over the stimulus package will likely reach new levels. Forcing the nation's major companies to accept de facto unionization is not going to sit well with the business elite. But if the administration doesn't ensure that some of the new green manufacturing jobs help boost union membership, it may suffer a serious backlash from one of the biggest supporters of the Democratic Party.

The political battle aside, the economics behind green jobs may not be as enticing as they first appear. Advocates of green jobs often claim that what makes them so important is that they can't (or at least not without extreme difficulty) be outsourced. Unlike traditional manufacturing, many of the jobs in the green economy can't be shipped overseas. One reason is that some of the parts, like windmills, are simply too big and costly to ship. Other jobs, such as green construction and retrofitting, are—for obvious reasons—done by workers in America. Getting our current stock of laborers trained in green techniques will provide them with a different set of skills while creating a new, specialized work force—one that could become a global leader in the emerging green economy.

GJF rightly pointed out that green companies don't just play the free-market game; they often turn to the government for lucrative subsidies and enticing tax breaks. This is exactly why they're so excited about the stimulus plan. But if the government starts handing out money to green companies, should it also attach wage stipulations? That's what GJF recommends. What's funny is that if the government did apply a wage floor to any green subsidies, it would be doing the exact opposite of what it did with a number of the banks it bailed out. Free-market enthusiasts are likely to be up in arms. They'll say the government has no right to redistribute wealth. But when it's the one doling out the cash—maybe it does.

As another writer on Slate rightly pointed out, the government's claim that it will create millions of green jobs in the next two decades is dubious. Worse still is that even if the government did create these millions of jobs, it may inadvertently precipitate the declining stature of the nation's manufacturing and union base. The green companies that come to fill the void left by the departure of the traditional manufacturing heavyweights may be both anti-union and unexpectedly stingy. If the government is going to offer these companies the cash to stay competitive and create jobs, then it might want to first consider how good their jobs are going to be and how much they'll contribute to the American economy. If not, it may bring to life a nasty employment monster that will haunt it for years to come.