With all due respect, I think the researchers at Careercast.com must be, as the Brits say, “having us on.”

That’s the only conclusion I can come to after looking at their much-touted “Best Jobs for 2010” list, just up on their Web site.

Not so much that they rank the job of insurance actuary as No. 1. After all, the rankings are based on a combination of “environment, income, outlook, stress and physical demands.” The fact that actuaries make good money, wear nice suits and sit at a desk would obviously rank the profession higher on the list than, say, anything seen on the “Dirty Jobs” show.

Nor do I take much umbrage over most of the other top 10 jobs, including the predictable computer software designer and analyst, accountant (they’re in demand in all economies) and dental hygenist (although I beg to differ with the “stress” element of that job — when my son was young he once threw up on one).

But guess what: ”Insurance agent” came in at an unenviable No. 103, right between “telephone installer/repairer” and “artist (fine art).” While the job of insurance agent might well include elements of both those jobs, I find it hard to believe that the job outlook for insurance agents is only one step above that of an aspiring paint-flinger. (It’s gotta be the stress level: 63.322 compared with 51.994 for artistes.)

Another position that handed me a laugh was that of “publication editor” (in the immortal words of Bozo the Clown, “Hey, that’s me! Wha-ha-ha-ha!”). Ink-stained wretches actually beat out insurance agents for job viability, coming in at No. 65. And although the fine print did concede that the hiring outlook for editors was “very poor,” this relatively high ranking completely ignores the fact that more U.S. print publications went down the tubes in the last two years than in the history of publishing.

I also had to laugh at other job entries that beat out insurance agents on the list — including “historian” at No. 5 (hey, all you business school students — ditch the MBA and start focusing on the Punic Wars!), “author” at No. 74 (riiiiight…), “janitor” at No. 83 and “bookbinder” at No. 91. Although ballerinas, astronauts, cowboys and pretty-pretty princesses didn’t make the cut, this list suggests that even your wildest kindergarten career fantasy would have been a better choice than what you’re doing now.

Still, you can take some comfort in the fact that you’re not in the career that came in No. 200: “roustabout.” No, not in the circus, but on oil rigs. Careercast.com describes it as a job with good earning potential, but with long hours, dirty and dangerous working conditions, isolation and high stress. Oh, wait…sound familiar?

Last June, AA&B took an in-depth look at insurers and agents who were specializing in “green” insurance coverage. Our sources spoke glowingly of the potential for growth in green construction, especially in the area of retrofitting existing buildings — a topic covered in a current Web exclusive article on the subject.

Supporters maintain that adopting green building methods and materials will create a “green collar” job transformation in the U.S.  The latest figures from the USGBC in a “Green Jobs Study” conducted by Booz Allen suggests that green building will support or create 7.9 million jobs between now and 2013. And in certain areas of the country, it seems to be working. One independent study shows California green jobs grew 36 percent from 1995 to 2008.

But President Obama’s campaign promises to create 5 million new green jobs and put the U.S. in the forefront of renewable energy production have failed to materialize. Ironically, China, which for years has been reviled for its profligate use of nonrenewable energy, is now the world leader in the production of off-grid wind turbine generators, according to a recent article in EcoWorld.com.

According to a recent article in Fast Company magazine, there is terrific potential for green job growth in these areas:

• Farmers
• Foresters
• Solar power installers
• Energy efficient builders
• Wind turbine fabricators
• Conservation biologists
• Green entrepreneurs
• Recyclers
• Sustainability systems developers
• Urban planners

This list is inclusive enough to accommodate all levels of workers, from MBAs to retrained blue-collar people.

Nobody should be cheering green jobs more than the insurance industry. With the manufacturing and construction industries struggling to find a place in the “new normal” economy, a burst of new activity in the green jobs area could pull these and other industries out of the doldrums.

But as the California example indicates, it takes more than hope to build the new green collar middle class American worker. Green is “gold” in California in large part because of state and municipal rules mandating green compliance. Like any fledgling industry, green jobs need some government incentive to get off the ground. As long as it’s cheaper to keep doing things the old way, the green promise will remain just that. In China, the government subsidizes wind power, knowing the young industry won’t be self-sustaining for years, but willing to make the investment. It seems if we really want to dig ourselves out of our current economic malaise, our country would be better served by a government that’s willing to invest in the future instead of propping up relics from the past.

Everyone is worried about healthcare, whether it’s the cost, the coverage, or how legislastive reform will change the way we’re used to dealing with it. Just yesterday, after meeting with representatives of all factions of the healthcare equation, President Obama reiterated his commitment to moving a healthcare reform bill through Congress before its August recess. Details are sketchy, other than suggestions that the plan could center on expanding Medicare to cover the uninsured (even though the recession has both Medicare and Social Security on the ropes).

Healthcare reform is a huge, complex issue that’s tough to get your arms around. But a recent New York Times article brought it down to a more human scale, and provides a hint of what could be in store if Washington takes a more active role in healthcare issues.

The article dealt with Congress’s plans to “give employers sweeping authority to reward employees for healthy behavior, including better diet, more exercise, weight loss and smoking cessation.”

Federal rules currently limit what employers and insurance companies can do to “incentivize” employees to focus on prevention and wellness. Several proposals are afloat that would rescind these limitations as part of whatever federal healthcare reform program gets passed.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, right? According to the article, employers currently face some confusing tax, labor and insurance laws when it comes to offering wellness programs. It only makes sense to introduce some standardization to these well-meaning programs.

What bothers me about this move is the potential to punish rather than encourage — and the not-so-subtle subtext of lifestyle discrimination.

Everybody knows that prevention programs are far less costly to administer than having to treat an illness directly arising from poor lifestyle choices.  But somewhere in the inevitable gray area in between lies the touchy issue of personal freedom — you know, that pursuit-of-happiness stuff that’s written into the Declaration of Independence.  

When it comes to the workplace, we’re already living in a recessionary, layoff-driven “buyers’ market,” with most states giving employers at-will rights to hire and fire. Employees still left standing in today’s job market are dancing as fast as they can, picking up the slack for their laid-off brethren. It doesn’t seem right that on top of everything else, their employers can levy financial penalties for unhealthy practices, either on or off the job.

And I’m not talking about shooting black-tar heroin or killing a quart of Finlandia before work. Clarian Health, an Indiana hospital chain, made headlines several years ago when it announced plans to deduct as much as $30 per paycheck for workers it deemed obese.

We’re living in a culture where We-TV can get away with “I Want to Save Your Life” — an “Intervention”-type program that puts overeating on the same level as drug or alcohol abuse.  In this sort of environment, it isn’t that far-fetched to think your employer could send a skeletal guy in Spandex charging into your office to make sure your carbs are curbed.

It seems to me that this sort of Big Nannyism would ultimately be bad for employee retention and productivity, not to mention opening the floodgates for some really nasty EPL lawsuits.

If employers want their workforce to focus more on the carrot than the steak, they should use the carrot instead of the stick. And if Congress wants to help them, legislators should be careful not to introduce measures that could make it easier to punish workers instead of helping them.