<mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >then cold fusion will reduce overall employment by 1.2 million people. > >Inexorably. > [snip] > This may well be true in the USA which already has a high standard of > living, > however CF will make a huge difference in the developing world, where > billions > of people currently can only dream of your standard of living. > CF could make it possible for the entire world to enjoy a standard of > living > equivalent to that in the USA, in fact better, in as much as all waste will > be > recycled leading to a far less polluted planet, where we can all lead a > healthier life. > I hope that is what happens, but even if it does, it will not have much affect on U.S. employment. The 1.2 million people I referred to are in the U.S. They will not be replaced by other workers in the U.S. producing equipment such as cars or space heaters for the third world because we do not sell industrial equipment to the third world. Japan, China and Korea have those markets sewed up. Nowadays they sell gasoline cars; in 20 years they will sell cold fusion cars. More of them, I hope. But I doubt the U.S. will have any role in it. In any case, modern manufacturing requires very few people. In the U.S. the prospects are for more unemployment, because we refuse to invest in new technology or manufacturing. We have handed over the markets for computers, iPads and most consumer goods to the Chinese in return for cheap stuff at Walmart. Hey, it wasn't my decision. [snip] > BTW don't forget all the new jobs that will be created in the manufacturing > sector as all your everyday items are upgraded to utilize the new energy > source, > The upgrade transition will not last for long and it will not create new jobs after it is done. On the contrary, the upgrade will be to newer production lines which take fewer workers. and also for newly created products, such as personal flying equipment; > currently not practical due to the limited amount of fuel that can be > carried. > In my first message I specified: "if we decide to live more or less the way we do now, consuming about as much energy per capita as we do now, with roughly as much transportation . . ." Personal flying equipment would be a change from the way we live now. It would require more energy. Whether it would also call for more employment or not I cannot judge. - Jed
