Relax wrote:Sigs wrote:Your argument seems to hinge on there being a finite number of jobs. We may end up having the cashier at McDonalds being replaced with a computer but that does not mean that over the next 2,000 years new jobs and new kinds of jobs cannot be created...
Historically the jobs that existed were:
Farmer, today far fewer farmers are needed due to? Machines. Far fewer will be needed tomorrow.
Teacher, today far fewer are needed there as well as curriculum materials improve and more become available.
Engineer/civil etc. Number is dropping as the infrastructure available for excellent life is in place. Contentment. When a new technology comes around, a whole new plethora of engineers are needed to design and implement this into everyday life. Once this is done, the engineers in this field essentially vanish. Once this is done in enough fields, the reliability of these fields increases to such an extent that fewer are needed to maintain as well.
For the first part, there are less farmers than say 200 years ago, but we need far more pilots, mechanics, Air traffic control etc... see where I'm getting at? Technology created a situation where we need fewer farmers, but on the other hand it created entire industries and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of careers.
As for teachers? We need fewer teachers because fewer teachers = less money it has nothing to do with technology decreasing the need for teachers but in fact technology is creating an ever greater demand for education and teachers.
So you are saying that once the infrastructure is in place, there is no demand for more? How much of the Infrastructure in the US and Canada is near collapse? It has little to do with demand disappearing and more to do with money...
Relax wrote: In short, we are at the very beginning of the technology age. We are now projecting 2000 years into the future where infrastructure has had 2000 years to be built. The speed of building said infrastructure is directly tied to energy available and the available machines.
And we are project 2,000 years into the future, with jobs we cannot yet imagine because they are brought on by technologies we cannot imagine. Technology progresses, it makes some jobs obsolete, but it creates other jobs so at the end it balances out.
Relax wrote: If you want a basic tutorial, look no further than the Nicaraguan canal cost analysis. Their one and only true cost is the $$$ required for diesel fuel to run various machines to move earth and create power to either create concrete or bring it in from outside sources. This is true of all infrastructure by and large be it telecommunications or road building.
What does this prove? That Labour is cheaper than diesel in Nicaragua? Or are you saying that there is no humans on that job site?
Relax wrote: Honorverse has Fusion tech and has had it for a VERY long time. Thus, infrastructure costs and manhour costs are minute at best. Vastly lower than they are today. This frees up an enormous number of people to do OTHER jobs. Millions of people in the USA for instance out of a population of 350Million are employed in the resource extraction, energy, infrastructure business. If 75% of them are now out of work, guess what? They are going to jump at anything else.
I got up to this point and got really tire of repeating the same thing over, and over and over and over again with you seeming to be unable to grasp a very simple concept.
Yes, we need far fewer farmers but we need more pilots, we need fewer candle makers but we need more vehicle mechanics. With each new technology, more jobs are created while many are lost but you seem to focus exclusively on the jobs lost and assume that the supply of jobs keeps dwindling.
There is less manufacturing jobs in the US, not because of technology but because of economics(Cheaper labour, less taxes, less government oversight, less protection for workers etc...) If all the factories lost to say China were returned to the US, a number of jobs will be lost due to automation but alot of spin off industries will create jobs BECAUSE of that automation.
Not even close... if we use your yard stick then Germany and Ethiopia would have the same ability to fight which is once again not even close... the ability to arm with proper equipment and maintain that military is the “defining factor for a countries ability to fight”. If I can army my troops with equipment that is generations better than what you can arm your troops with numbers become mostly irrelevant... and history is full of examples.Relax wrote: demographics for men of military age is the true defining factor for a countries ability to fight.
