Ok, but you're thinking in circles here, aren't you ? If you only count jobs that make economic sense then 1) any kind of job that is merely self-sustaining doesn't count. That might not be much in the US, in many countries it's 80% or more of the population. You can interpret this in many ways, starting at including only subsistence farmers, or you could be fair and count any job that doesn't provide disposable income.* 2) any kind of job that is merely checking others, or some form of administration or social program doesn't contribute to the economy. This means most government jobs, and for example any healthcare job that is paid for mostly by medicare. 3) Things like police and military ... ditto.

So what are the figures now ? I'm willing to bet that worldwide, >80% of people do not have an economically useful function. That number is rising, fast. That's what everybody is complaining about.

Making all these people retrain, and actually become good at an economically useful function, assuming it is possible at all, is not going to happen. About that assumption : know any industry sector that could use >4.6 billion people ? I know we could use maybe 1-2 million extra developers, but that would cover everything pretty well. The employment provided by that, worldwide, is but a rounding error.

You also assume that, when push comes to shove, those 80% of people are going to let you have your economically profitable position at all. When I look at my own lifetime, that seems so obviously true ... it seems insane to question it. When I read the history of the 20 years before my birth or talk to my father, that seems a risky proposition. When I read the history of the last century or talk to my grandfather, that idea quickly becomes entirely ridiculous. The amount of work the entire economy can usefully provide pales to what war can provide. Of course, those jobs come at a cost you might find you're not willing to pay, but this is a choice that will be made for you.

* You could even be extremely cruel and take that any job inside a country that's not running a trade surplus obviously is not economically useful to the world. It's just spinning around at best. But that would take us so close to 100% uselessness it's hard to argue that. Also keep in mind that the net economic usefulness of the entire world, of course, has to be zero. Once you pass a certain scale the economy's only remaining function is to keep humans busy.

Someone said "the problem is X", someone else said "the problem is Y", and I said "Y is a subset of X". You seem to be attributing many thoughts to me which I have not expressed.