121–130 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Offshoring to people who use AI, and are now much more productive and can produce high-quality written output. If a junior role can be done with ChatGPT and CoPilot, why pay a western salary for it when you can pay someone a fraction of the salary to use the same thing?
Most succinct answer to this general concern I've seen in months. It's business. Less dollars paid out for the same LLM content that the managers know the developers will produce in any case. Foolish to pay more for essentially the same LLM response.
Grads, it's not the seasoned workers, or automation. It's the incentives that drive the whole thing. And the people in charge of those incentives, and the context that created those, and the culture that supports all of it.
This article from March suggests it's not just tech jobs, either: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianehamilton/2025/03/01/are-en...
It's disappointing any solution to this issue will easily be 5-10 years away, leaving the rest of us plebeians to grapple with the consequences in the meantime. Plus any solution that increases pay for entry-level workers necessarily costs employers more than the peanuts they currently pay workers overseas, so they'll bitch and moan as hard as they can to turn public interest against any politician that tries. Really…
There are a number of industries where you may need experience to become more productive than AI, but nobody wants to hire you when AI is more productive in the first couple of years. Is there a good equilibrium for this, or does it end up with each company saying "We won't hire the juniors, just the experienced people" and then finding there aren't enough experienced people around?
This used to be addressed by the fact that people were loyal to companies - so it was in the company's interest to spend years training them up investing in them, with the knowledge that they might get decades of productive work out of them afterwards. One of my grandparents joined a company as an apprentice as 16, got trained by them, and then worked there for 40 years until retirement. But nowadys with the culture…
In my observation, employers stopped being loyal to employees long before employees stopped being loyal to employers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What should they do then?
Government funded schools with lower tuition (possibly even community college), more rigorous degrees with higher likelihoods of stable pay (e.g. medical/engineering), trade schools/apprenticeships.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you should be working to burn it all the fuck down to the ground. . . . which is literally never the correct answer.
>> you should be working to burn it all the fuck down to the ground. > ...which is literally never the correct answer. But it's the answer chosen all the time. If "entry-level tech jobs are getting wiped out," some (usually distributed) group made the decision to burn those new-grads plans to the ground. Why should they be insulated from similar decisions? Working "to burn it all the fuck down to the ground" is just…
>The key difference, he said, is that the iterative process to make AI code better takes minutes, while a junior coder might need days for the same task. Your Sr engineer is also still distracted and focused on those tasks. Junior engineers come up with new ideas, can eventually put the whole system together. There's never just one code base. What Ai tools are replacing engineers? I finay tried cursors free tier yest…
I did a lot of driving forklifts, construction, moving, factory work, etc when junior in the job market after graduating near the top of my class with strong internship experience from a top 10 engineering college. Adjusting expectations is important. If you start with the expectation that all you will have is a pot to piss in then it is all up from there. Things may never look up, but when they do, I've found a lot…
Isn’t there some quote about old men planting trees whose shade they’ll never know? Was that just a myth or did those generations actually exist?