Uh, no. More your really sketchy analogies about 1m not necessarily better than 100K for both workers and military.
Economic: some older business models may never go away despite increased efficiencies and advanced analysis capabilities (e.g. broker-client relationships in insurance and other financial services, sales jobs, customer service, manual labor, etc.)
Of course, many of these jobs have been taken over by automation via the internet. I buy insurance and manage my policies online, I manage my investments online, I purchase a large number of my goods online. Of course, we will never eliminate the need for human involvement to some degree (or at least not without substantial improvements in AI), but my point was that many of the blue-collared jobs for which immigrants were traditionally sought are decreasing in importance in the western world. By all means, we can use more doctors, scientists, engineers, academics, etc. but improvements in education alone should be sufficient to advance these vital sectors.
War: Once the air/naval battles have been won, there will always be a need for significant numbers of ground troops fight the land battles or do cleanup work.
There is still need for such, but always? In the next 10-20 years the military intends to automate supply convoys and their defences, a significant use of ground troops at this point in time...and one of the most dangerous operations in current conflicts. Atomization of armoured columns will follow soon thereafter, the military has made substantial strides in developing the AI required for such advances. We have already deployed robots that can engage in the most dangerous tasks which are operated at the squad level. The evolution of military tactics since WWII has been towards smaller and less centralized combat units, taking the genius of Napoleon to the next logical level (though often compelled to do so by enemies who have employed these tactics, mostly using the tactical doctrines developed by Mao Tse-Tung). I believe that the initial conflict in Afganistan will be a new paradigm for 21st century warfare: a small number of combat controllers, escorted by special forces, directing air operations. Allowing a few hundred men with air support (air support which, I should note, is becomming increasingly automated) to defeat an army of tens of thousands...the numbers seen there were far less proportionate than the 10:1 ratio I suggested in my last post.
We're not yet to the point where 1000 technicians in Washington can invade and occupy a reigonal power with an automated army. But in 100 years, we may very well be.