When some are just plugging in a lightbulb and a phone and others are plugging in "energy-inefficient televisions and refrigerators" perhaps either the wealthier should abstain from doing so or should instead invest in more capacity.
On a larger scale this would be accomplished with meters and prices that would make using 100x more juice than your neighbor either uneconomical or at least costly enough to build infrastructure but on this scale it would have to have been solved by common sense which like electricity appears to have been scarce.
Grid scale solar is dirt cheap, to the point of being cheaper than coal, but it requires a grid. Not really sure what the point of them highlighting this was. If the villagers had a reliable grid connection, they wouldn't care if it was fed via solar
What's more likely to happen, as I understand, is that cells of about the same efficiency level as what most people are using now, or maybe somewhat less, will get much cheaper (e.g., perovskites). But that won't be a reason to replace existing installations.
http://www.zmescience.com/science/twice-efficient-residentia...
And instead of doubling of efficiencies(22% to 44%) , I've seen some thoerticak work talking about 60%+ .
As far as solar related jobs you have the manufacturing and delivery of solar panels, all the related industries for raw materials, etc for solar panels and then the installation. That's quite a few jobs.
Also you need to consider jobs outside the US, even the North American continent. Solar may be more expensive than other sources in the US but that's because we have an electrical grid. Solar is the most cost efficient option when considering the developing world, i.e. Africa, parts of Asia, etc. Those solar panels are more likely to come from outside the US, i.e. China, as the dollar exchange value as well as delivery might make it cost prohibitive for developing nations to purchase solar panels from the US.