We've strayed pretty far from the original topic here, but the reality is that the US military is literally running out of working aircraft because they're so old. The average age of USAF aircraft is now about 28 years. The fleet was allowed to decay and not substantially recapitalized during the GWOT. Many of the fighters in the combat coded inventory aren't even allowed to hit their original 9G maneuvering limit any more due to accumulated airframe fatigue. Now we're paying an overdue bill.

And let's please not have any uninformed claims that somehow cheap "drones" will magically make large, expensive manned aircraft obsolete. Small, cheap drones are effective in a trench warfare environment like the current conflict in Ukraine but they lack the range, speed, and payload necessary to be useful in a potential major regional conflict with China. And the notion of relying on AI for any sort of complex mission in a dynamic environment remains firmly in the realm of science fiction: maybe that will be feasible in a few decades but for now any really complex missions still rely on humans in the loop to execute effectively.

The problem is that fighter aircraft have gotten too expensive to afford to build, even for a nation.

Sure, that is a problem. Ironically the best solution from an overall expense management standpoint is to drive economies of scale by building more and retiring older units on an accelerated schedule to cut maintenance costs. Keep production lines running continuously instead of periodically starting and stopping. The F-35A, while badly flawed in certain ways, is at least relatively affordable due to high production volumes.

Not to build, but to build and maintain. We never budget for maintenance (we as in companies and governments).

If Sweden can do it...

Oh yes it’s about time the US enters another war so we can justify even more military spending and less spending to improve the livelihood of the people.

Just kidding we are already doing that with Venezuela.

You're really missing the point. If we're going to have a military at all then we have to constantly keep building new combat aircraft (and other weapon systems). The old ones wear out and become obsolete. Ironically this is the best way to prevent a major war, through deterrence. (I do think that attacking Venezuela would be stupid and pointless.)

I don’t really dispute that, to loop around to the start of debate, you’re not building an F-35 with unskilled labor. This isn’t automotive workers riveting B-17s together.

Main battle tanks are probably less useful in the future of armed conflict due to the effectiveness of drones.

Spending on childcare means we need to offset those debts with other revenues.

We have close to full employment, so I'd argue that freeing up labor isn't as strategic as other categories of spending.

It all depends on what you want to prioritize. For the long term health of the nation, these areas seem key for continued economic resiliency:

- pay down the debt so it doesn't spiral out of control (lots of strategies here, some good, some bad: higher taxes, lower spending, wanton imperialism, inflation, etc.)

- remain competitive in key industries, including some catch-up: robotics, batteries, solar, chip manufacture

- if we're going for a multipolar world / self-sufficiency play, we need to rebuild the supply chain by onshoring and friendshoring. This means the boring stuff too, like plastics and pharmaceutical inputs.

- lots of energy expansion and infrastructure

I think we should act with empathy and care for each other.

The government does not need to be run like a fucking business.

It's because it runs like a business that we're able to enjoy a high standard of living.

If the economy stops growing, or worse, degrades, everyone will suffer incredibly. Job loss, investment loss, higher cost of living.

There's a wide gulf between childcare for none and childcare for all.

I'm an atheist, but some of the cheapest childcare is at churches. Orders of magnitude cheaper than private childcare because they already have the infrastructure for it. I've had affluent people turn their nose at the idea of Christians watching their kids. But there are entirely affordable options if you're not being choosey.

I don’t understand the conjunction of “the state should not subsidize childcare with taxes” and “the church should subsidize childcare with underpaid labor and tithes.”

Church membership is voluntary.

Being atheist, GP is presumably not a member (or at worst, is a member in bad faith, pun intended).

The economy will stop growing eventually. Nothing grows forever. If we have built our society around the notion of perpetual economic growth, we have already accepted that "everyone will suffer incredibly", and we're only arguing about which generation will be the one to bear it.

> The economy will stop growing eventually.

That isn't necessarily true. If we find continual efficiency gains, it may never stop growing for thousands of years.

Most growth curves in life are S-curves. Population growth, etc. But technological advancement could continue until we become a type II civilization.

That's absolutely sci-fi speculation, but there are no signs of technological advancement ending.

If each round of advancement increases efficiency, growth continues. I don't see an end in sight.

Everyone should learn how to build drones.