As a former Finance person, it is interesting to see the panicked attitude of programmers toward AI and the resulting loss of job opportunities. Programmers have eliminated more jobs than almost any other group of people on the planet.
I began working in the late 80’s. Throughout my career I saw the steady reduction in Finance organizations as roles were reduced and/or eliminated by the introduction of computers and software. First it was spreadsheets that eliminated the tedious work of writing on 13-column sheets to create financials. Then it was accounts payable clerks who were eliminated as EDI sent better quality information that needed less reconciliation and fewer humans touching it. I watched 90% of accounts receivable clerks who were eliminated as software could create the invoices from data in the system and automatically match payments to invoices. Then it was the bank reconciliations teams that were reduced as better information flow between the banks and companies allowed the automation of daily bank reconciliations. All of these were thought by the companies to be great advances due to technology. They eliminated “non-value-added” work and made companies more efficient. They also eliminated lots of jobs, particularly entry-level jobs.
My intuition is that other functions saw similar increases in labor productivity. Why is what is happening to programmers today any different?
The thought process alluded to here that every person is the ceo of their own firm - Self, Inc. - is the same kind of un-unlearnable universal acid as darwinism. An idea that germinates criticism of many other preconceived notions.
The end result of this thinking is convincing oneself that the commodification of everything is a positive trait in the MPP-internalising war of all against all.
Personally, the moment I started working was the moment I knew I needed to become free at some point. Jobs come and go, sometimes they're quite enjoyable, but you're always one bad boss, one health condition, one recession away from living a nightmare. The solution to me is not to interview "as a hobby", that also sounds like a nightmare. The solution is to get out by any means possible, or at least work towards the ability to get out when the need arrives.
Not all advice have to applicable to 100% of the population. If you're on HN reading this you are most likely in the 10%, and you probably have some room to save money, or prepare to start your own business. If needing a job bothers you that is, some people I know don't seem to mind all that much it seems.
You drastically overestimate the value and skill of the average code monkey (and I include myself in this illustrious 10% sitting at a typewriter all day).
>> And perhaps the darkest trend in recent times is the holy grail for CEOs—not hiring people in the first place
I believe this complacency that companies currently have (i.e. everything will be the same except we'll need fewer people) will soon give away to fear. Companies will realize that they are in a race and now is the dumbest time ever to let people go as they will need every possible advantage to win. Lazily sitting around and waiting for AI to replace people while doing some layoffs here and there is really max complacency. These companies are going to get their butts handed to them by competitors who focus on leveraging AI + people.
Maybe at some point in the future when things have stabilized it might make sense to try to trim costs. Right now though, the ground is shaking and they need to move or die.
If everyone employed by the company is doing something that somehow contributes to revenue I think your position is correct. If a significant percentage of employees activities don't contribute to revenue, then your position isn't entirely correct. Performing layoffs of those employees should improve revenue outcomes.
But it is also incorrect to assume that since some employees don't contribute to revenue that layoffs are going to improve the companies profitability. Executives may not have the information to know exactly who to layoff. Or they may have that information, but actively chose to ignore it. But if you're willing to engage in something vaguely equivalent to the shotgun debugging of your personnel, you probably can cut more non-revenue generating staff than revenue generating staff.
I mean sure, cut people that will slow you down. Keep people that will speed you up. I don't think saving an insignificant amount of money today is going to be the differentiating factor for future success. Yet, this is what lazy companies are doing today - laying people off and implementing token "we're doing AI" programs. All I can say to those companies is RIP.
This is why this commentary doesn't matter. Either it'll work, in which case, great, cheaper products and services, or it won't work and the company folds and a competitor who didn't do it replaces them, or it won't work and they realise in time and stop it.
Agree. My main point is I think we will see a shift from "AI complacency" to "AI fear" in the next 6 months or so. Right now we are at peak complacency I would say.
Capitalism babies seem to have forgotten that somebody needs to actually pay them for the stuff they peddle. Unfortunately, that part of the deal takes a while to kick in and initially VC money creates the illusion that they can fire everyone, have AI do all the work, and money will magically appear out of thin air.
I agree. That is what I mean by the "AI complacency" phase that we are now in. Companies think that the only thing that will change is the employee part of the equation. Everything else - customers, revenues, etc. will of course just stay the same so they can just chill and casually lay people off (essentially classic arrogance and complacency).
A good article; it resonated with my current situation.
I'd like to share an insight from a workplace where I've been for 10 years and have had 6 different managers and various teams.
When you start working with a new manager or team, hold back on excessive commitment and trust until the first serious crisis arises within the team or department. This usually happens within a few months. It's in serious situations that people's true capabilities are revealed when they're needed most.
As a former Finance person, it is interesting to see the panicked attitude of programmers toward AI and the resulting loss of job opportunities. Programmers have eliminated more jobs than almost any other group of people on the planet.
I began working in the late 80’s. Throughout my career I saw the steady reduction in Finance organizations as roles were reduced and/or eliminated by the introduction of computers and software. First it was spreadsheets that eliminated the tedious work of writing on 13-column sheets to create financials. Then it was accounts payable clerks who were eliminated as EDI sent better quality information that needed less reconciliation and fewer humans touching it. I watched 90% of accounts receivable clerks who were eliminated as software could create the invoices from data in the system and automatically match payments to invoices. Then it was the bank reconciliations teams that were reduced as better information flow between the banks and companies allowed the automation of daily bank reconciliations. All of these were thought by the companies to be great advances due to technology. They eliminated “non-value-added” work and made companies more efficient. They also eliminated lots of jobs, particularly entry-level jobs.
My intuition is that other functions saw similar increases in labor productivity. Why is what is happening to programmers today any different?
The thought process alluded to here that every person is the ceo of their own firm - Self, Inc. - is the same kind of un-unlearnable universal acid as darwinism. An idea that germinates criticism of many other preconceived notions.
The end result of this thinking is convincing oneself that the commodification of everything is a positive trait in the MPP-internalising war of all against all.
Personally, the moment I started working was the moment I knew I needed to become free at some point. Jobs come and go, sometimes they're quite enjoyable, but you're always one bad boss, one health condition, one recession away from living a nightmare. The solution to me is not to interview "as a hobby", that also sounds like a nightmare. The solution is to get out by any means possible, or at least work towards the ability to get out when the need arrives.
What should the other 90% of the population due? Buy lottery tickets?
Not all advice have to applicable to 100% of the population. If you're on HN reading this you are most likely in the 10%, and you probably have some room to save money, or prepare to start your own business. If needing a job bothers you that is, some people I know don't seem to mind all that much it seems.
You drastically overestimate the value and skill of the average code monkey (and I include myself in this illustrious 10% sitting at a typewriter all day).
>> And perhaps the darkest trend in recent times is the holy grail for CEOs—not hiring people in the first place
I believe this complacency that companies currently have (i.e. everything will be the same except we'll need fewer people) will soon give away to fear. Companies will realize that they are in a race and now is the dumbest time ever to let people go as they will need every possible advantage to win. Lazily sitting around and waiting for AI to replace people while doing some layoffs here and there is really max complacency. These companies are going to get their butts handed to them by competitors who focus on leveraging AI + people.
Maybe at some point in the future when things have stabilized it might make sense to try to trim costs. Right now though, the ground is shaking and they need to move or die.
If everyone employed by the company is doing something that somehow contributes to revenue I think your position is correct. If a significant percentage of employees activities don't contribute to revenue, then your position isn't entirely correct. Performing layoffs of those employees should improve revenue outcomes.
But it is also incorrect to assume that since some employees don't contribute to revenue that layoffs are going to improve the companies profitability. Executives may not have the information to know exactly who to layoff. Or they may have that information, but actively chose to ignore it. But if you're willing to engage in something vaguely equivalent to the shotgun debugging of your personnel, you probably can cut more non-revenue generating staff than revenue generating staff.
I mean sure, cut people that will slow you down. Keep people that will speed you up. I don't think saving an insignificant amount of money today is going to be the differentiating factor for future success. Yet, this is what lazy companies are doing today - laying people off and implementing token "we're doing AI" programs. All I can say to those companies is RIP.
> All I can say to those companies is RIP.
This is why this commentary doesn't matter. Either it'll work, in which case, great, cheaper products and services, or it won't work and the company folds and a competitor who didn't do it replaces them, or it won't work and they realise in time and stop it.
It's capitalism, baby.
Agree. My main point is I think we will see a shift from "AI complacency" to "AI fear" in the next 6 months or so. Right now we are at peak complacency I would say.
Capitalism babies seem to have forgotten that somebody needs to actually pay them for the stuff they peddle. Unfortunately, that part of the deal takes a while to kick in and initially VC money creates the illusion that they can fire everyone, have AI do all the work, and money will magically appear out of thin air.
I agree. That is what I mean by the "AI complacency" phase that we are now in. Companies think that the only thing that will change is the employee part of the equation. Everything else - customers, revenues, etc. will of course just stay the same so they can just chill and casually lay people off (essentially classic arrogance and complacency).
A good article; it resonated with my current situation.
I'd like to share an insight from a workplace where I've been for 10 years and have had 6 different managers and various teams.
When you start working with a new manager or team, hold back on excessive commitment and trust until the first serious crisis arises within the team or department. This usually happens within a few months. It's in serious situations that people's true capabilities are revealed when they're needed most.
imagine some person, who just works exactly same way all time, presumably good.
and crisis arises, he still works and acts same way, he does not try to work harder.
would your test reveal his capability?