• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I agree with much of your comment but must say I feel you moved the goalposts a bit from raw funds to expertise and manpower. I understand your draw argument, but would contend that it’s not that overlapped a Venn diagram. There aren’t that many aerospace engineer / civil engineer hybrids that you’re losing staff from one to the other.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I feel you moved the goalposts a bit from raw funds to expertise and manpower

      When you’re the US Feds, money isn’t real. You can spend 20% of GDP while carrying a $35T debt and nobody cares.

      But you still need to spend the money on stuff. You can’t buy a trillion in waffles because that many waffles don’t exist. Similarly, you can’t hire $2T in engineering talent over 10 years without depleting a well of talent shared by other engineering professions.

      You’re creating an enormous vacuum in the industry when you can pay 2x-5x what other engineers are making and you’re employing thousands of people for the job over a decade.

      There aren’t that many aerospace engineer / civil engineer hybrids

      This isn’t a question of “hybrid”. This is a question of “which college has the best graduate salaries?” and “which professors are in the highest demand into the next decade?”

      $2T over ten years is it’s own (very lucrative) industry. That’s before you get into the draw this has on electrical engineers and materials specialists and management training.