Didn’t read the article but I love the braindead chart:
lol this is one way to make sure it doesn’t look like AI wrote your shit.
I tried reading the article, got about halfway through and it just keeps repeating the same thing over and over again. It starts with this:
There’s a shortage coming that nobody’s put on a slide yet: senior engineers. Every company on earth is about to want one who can drive a fleet of agents with judgment — and almost nobody is making new ones anymore, because AI ate the entry-level work juniors used to learn on
That’s it. That’s the whole article as far as I was willing to read. There’s almost no extra information further down. Holy hell.
Bert Hubert wrote about the same consideration in a blog post.
I think the consideration itself is valid. But Berts position has a big difference: He does not pretend that he can tell the future. It is quite logical and to expect that people ceasing to work as junior developers, or them not finding a job, might lead to a scarcity of senior developers. But we do not really know what happens. I’d describe it more as the whole field in crisis. And the jobs that remain, might not be the jobs that experienced senior developers, of which e.g. in Germany purely by demographics many are close to retirement, really want to do.
Something similar, at a perhaps smaller scale, has happened during and after the Corona pandemic in Europe in the field of hospitality: People in this sector could not get work, or only short hours. So they left the field, since there were other, better paying jobs, with more friendly work times. Hotels and restaurants experienced a worker shortage. One could have expected that then, the businesses had to pay more to attract people. But this did not happen at a significant scale. Was happened was automation and reduction of work, lowering of service standards, and restaurants closing. Was this predictable? I do not know.
Besides with software industry being pretty big, I think that the crisis may take another 50 years before having an effect they describe, not many of laid off now people will be able to wait for it
Typical modern article. And then some people are going angry “You obviously have read only the title, not the article in full”. Wonder why people limit themselves only to titles? Maybe because the article is 2 sentences worth of data fit into 20 paragraphs of the life story of Jane Smith who was amazed and sat in awe after reading e-mail that will change her life?
I tend to just look at the comments first here for anything even slightly questionable. Seems like some of the dumbed down shit does actual brain damage to read.
IMHO. This haas been common sense for most senior devs for a while now. Looking at AI workflows there is little opportunity to build up the skill and experience required to become a senior.
This was written by ai, right?
Yeah definitely. From the opener “There’s a shortage coming that nobody’s put on a slide yet” onwards it reads like I’m reading Claude output.
You Can’t Just Buy Them
I can hear the objection, because it’s the obvious one and I’ve made it myself: just hire seniors when you need them. Let the other guy train them. Poach the finished product. It’s cheaper, it’s faster, and it has worked for the entire history of this industry. Right? WRONG.
Here’s why that breaks: everyone is about to have that exact same idea at the exact same time. Every company that quietly decides juniors are too expensive is also quietly deciding to buy its seniors on the open market later.
One might think that companies really ought to be smarter. But the histories of whaling and fishing shows that profit-oriented industries are absolutely capable of completely and irreversibly wrecking their own economical foundations for a few years with a bit of extra profit.
Companies smarter? You obviously never got close to one.
So soon? I figured it’d take a couple years for them to realize how they shot themselves in the foot by not hiring juniors anymore.
