[deleted]
What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?
321–330 of 394 posts
Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?
#322the issue is pay bands, not remote work or ai. Why would you hire a junior instead of a senior, if the senior costs only 20% more?
Where are you seeing such a narrow pay band? I don't have a great view on the market, but that strikes me as really odd.
Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should those other people be made to RTO and spend less time around their kids, to fill in your isolated lifestyle?
Isn't that kind of how society works? i.e. If a senior employee benefitted from having close mentorship and a strong social network when they were a junior, then they may wish to pay it forward by being present and mentoring juniors now that they're a senior.
Wishing to go to office and make friends is very different from forcing everyone to do so. Many of us remote senior workers have rich social lives and were able to upskill ourselves, without needing coworkers to substitute for a failing social experience.
Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
The layoffs are happening all over, not just in USA. Atlassian has cut jobs. Spotify. Wisetech. Xero. It's happening all over. This is not a USA tax policy problem.
What could possibly trigger people to down vote this absolutely neutral, and 100% factual, normal post? Cant the moderators not explain, than down voting is not for things you don't agree with?
Uh, downvoting is definitely a useful tool to signal that you don’t agree with an opinion or subjective statement.
But yes, downvoting a factual statement makes no sense.
Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
The R&D tax credit change actually took effect in 2022, and one of the few good things Trump's BBB did was reverse it
This is true as stated. However, it is important context that the time bomb was originally introduced in Trump's signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in his first term. So, yes, Trump's OBBBA fixed it, but Trump's TCJA caused it in the first place, too.
This is a fair criticism and I am not defending the practice. My understanding is that time-bombs like this are very regularly introduced into all sorts of bills, party-agnostic. It's how they can say things like "We saved $X over Y years!" where a lot of the time-bombs go off half-way through the 'Y-years" bit unless renewed.
Please correct if I'm wrong about this. I only know what I read, which is hard to trust anymore.
Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is plenty of companies already firing people due because of AI, or at least, that's why they proclaim. There is also plenty of freelance / artistry type people who would of had work before (i.e creating Halloween, mothers day, Easter, etc) promotional material which is now just outsourced to AI. You see some of the biggest companies on Earth posting AI stuff for special event, etc. Most aren't at the stage of u…
> There is plenty of companies already firing people due because of AI, or at least, that's why they proclaim. AI is clearly a scapegoat. If you are a CEO who is pressured to show results but can't improve revenue in this economy and can't downsize because of the red flags it represents to investors, AI represents a unique opportunity to enjoy a two-for-one special and both cut staff and portray themselves as leaders…
> AI represents a unique opportunity to enjoy a two-for-one special and both cut staff and portray themselves as leaders in the sector that's achieving massive efficiency gains.
This is not what a scapegoat is. Definitionally, a scapegoat is innocent; here, however, AI is being used as a tool of disciplining labor.
Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
Each and every parent of 4+ whom I worked with lived in the middle of nowhere and would only emerge from the deep woods for an occasional workshop a few times a year. It's a lifestyle impossible if one has to show up an hour's drive away, every weekday.
Yes! I'm "only" a parent of 3 and live nowhere near my coworkers and would be happiest never going to the office. I have been told to travel across the country to HQ every 2 months for vague reasons. I wish I could better articulate to my managers the costs of this policy to my family. Usually female managers understand.
> I wish I could better articulate to my managers the costs of this policy to my family.
Sounds like grounds for "take your child to work day". Do people still do that? I went a few times with my mom to her place in between school years.
Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?
#328In 2026 a Junior Engineer is just Claude Code with a bad UI, higher latency, and extra steps. Literally. I wouldn't even considering hiring a junior engineer at this point. The ROI was already barely breakeven for any but the top of the top junior engineers as they are likely to move on before they are meaningfully contributing. With AI in the mix the ROI for Junior Engineers is strongly negative for 2 reasons: 1. (o…
People don't want to hear this, but it's true, especially the part about the junior developer just using Claude Code themselves. We may still be too early on the curve of AI usage for AI to be the major driver of the labor market changes, but we also have no clue about what to do about it. Often the conversation puts "Using AI ourself" at odds with "Delegating to a junior developer", but the junior developer is going…
Yeah I have the same issue with code reviews now. I can put some comments in, but they're just going to get forwarded to AI for addressing, so should I just tell my AI instead and make my comment in the form of a commit, saving a hop?
The basic workplace automation loop is:
1. Find what people are spending most of their time on and automate it.
2. As automation takes hold, people will adjust and their time is now mostly spent on things that aren't automated.
3. Goto 1.
Step 1 used to be 3-24 months building an app or feature, now it's often just finding the right prompt. The end states I see are:
a. We've achieved AGI and eventually everything is automated, the loop stops, and the notion of employment is over.
b. We're stuck on AGI and eventually there's nothing left that can be automated, the loop stops and humans are all employed for work that is unsuited for automation.
c. We've achieved AGI but businesses and societies can't react fast enough to ever fully absorb it, and we're all constantly in limbo going through the loop at ridiculous speeds.
I'm leaning c but indeed, who knows.
Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?
#329Why would remote working have anything to do with the amount of junior hiring? You can maybe make the case that remote work isn't as helpful for juniors etc etc. but that has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to create a job requisition or not.
Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?
#330Why would remote working have anything to do with the amount of junior hiring? You can maybe make the case that remote work isn't as helpful for juniors etc etc. but that has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to create a job requisition or not.
I would think the general situation would be that it's probably harder to develop juniors now in a (more) remote environment so we shouldn't hire them and hire more experienced people instead.