Oh I'd prefer a lot of things that are never going to happen. It's more a question of social status - what pays more, construction worker, or lawyer who argues for/against construction?
Nothing in this thread points to lack of workers, but to over regulation.
On a personal note, I'd prefer many less lawyers, especially the ones who argue against the one energy source that works.
I'd prefer many more trade workers, much less in academics.
I'd prefer people to not view jobs as a social status and appreciate the contributions people give to society.
A plumber can make quite a bit of money, work up to their own business, not have to deal with huge amounts of debt, and actually provides needed services for society.
A basketball player can make quite a bit of money playing basketball if they're exceptional. Looks like the national average for a plumber is about $60K/year. Most people on this forum would scoff at that if someone offered them that. It's actually about as much as my uncle, a heavy diesel mechanic, made before his untimely death. It's about what my father made when he retired.
Why don't we build? Why don't we do anything; because it's more profitable not to I'm sure.
SWE is a bubble and can't really be applied to the rest of the workforce. A SWE would scoff at any other job because of this.
We do have builders, there is overregulation that stops us from building.
It's not the lack of workers.
The thread points at inflation and interest rates and general cost overruns. I don't see the overregulation. As others have said, you can run your non nuclear powerplants until they fall apart. That isn't possible with nuclear power.