Would similar research in other countries also return similar results?
The US is going through a lot of upheaval, which whether you think is positive or negative, is unique, and a confounding factor for any such research.
Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change
91–100 of 197 posts
Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change
#92soon there will be entire new industries of "Bullshit Jobs" to keep the masses occupied they rather pay people to sit in a room pressing a button every hour than have them loitering around on UBI either that or in the pod
Would the entire tracking, advertisement and general enshittification industry already count as bullshit jobs?
Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 10 years where do the senior dev's come from? Real question. Seems like with lower entry level jobs now, in 10 years there won't be seniors to hire.
Junior devs eventually will have been brought up with agentic coding, etc. Hopefully whatever the "new way" becomes is how they'll be taught. Currently part of the problem is the taboo using AI coding in undergrad CS programs. And I don't know the answer. But someone will find the right way to teach new/better ways of working with and without generative AI. It may just become second nature to everyone.
This is the same reason they force you to do the math by hand in undergrad and implement functions that are already in the standard libraries of most languages. Because you don't know anything yet, and you need to learn why the more automated stuff works the way it does.
Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was the incentive for companies to train juniors into seniors in the past, post job-hopping era? Curious to know if that incentive has warped in the past two decades or so as someone who's starting their career now.
Companies are organisms
How does that answer the question?
Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change
#95New Harvard's study (62M workers, 285k firms) shows firms adopting generative AI cut junior hiring sharply while continuing to grow senior roles — eroding the bottom rungs of career ladders and reshaping how careers start.
What was the incentive for companies to train juniors into seniors in the past, post job-hopping era? Curious to know if that incentive has warped in the past two decades or so as someone who's starting their career now.
There is no incentive now because the social contract is broken and there is too much mobility. Best you can do is find a supportive boss / a company that provides training opportunities.
Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change
#96Generative AI may automate some entry-level tasks, but young professionals are not just “replaceable labor.” They bring growth potential, adaptation, and social learning. Without frameworks to manage AI’s role, we risk undermining the very training grounds that prepare the next generation of experts.
How do they bring more “growth potential” than a mid level developer with 3-5 years of experience? The average tenure of a developer is 2-3 years. I expect that to increase going forward slightly as the job market continues to suck. But why would I care about the growth of the company when my promotion criteria is based on delivering quarterly or yearly goals? Those goals can much more easily be met by paying slightly more for a mid level developer who doesn’t do negative work both directly and by taking time away from the existing team?
Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how you want innovation and productivity in a world with rapidly increasing population. We need less and less people while producing more and more people. Where am I wrong?
> in a world with rapidly increasing population That world was 30 years ago. In 2025 world average total fertility rate is 2.2, which is a shade above replacement rate (2.1). And 2.2 is a 10% drop since 2017 alone (when it was 2.46). Because life expectancy is higher, the population will continue to increase. But not "rapidly".
According to some cutting edge research[1], we are already bellow replacement rate worldwide.
Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change
#98New Harvard's study (62M workers, 285k firms) shows firms adopting generative AI cut junior hiring sharply while continuing to grow senior roles — eroding the bottom rungs of career ladders and reshaping how careers start.
What was the incentive for companies to train juniors into seniors in the past, post job-hopping era? Curious to know if that incentive has warped in the past two decades or so as someone who's starting their career now.
Same as always?
Cheap labor. It doesn't take that much to train someone to be somewhat useful, in mmany cases. The main educators are universities and trade schools. Not companies.
And if they want more loyalty the can always provide more incentives for juniors to stay longer.
At least in my bubble it's astonishing how it's almost never worth it to stay at a company. You'd likely get overlooked for promotions and salary rises are almost insultingly low.
Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change
#99In the future, there will be two kinds of companies: 1. Those that encourage people to use AI agents aggressively to increase productivity. 2. Those that encourage people to use AI agents aggressively to be more productive while still hiring young people. Which type of company will be more innovative, productive, and successful in the long run?
The ones in group 2 that also aggressively prune expensive, complacent seniors might even win in the short run! Young people are cheap and they love AI!
How much cheaper are younger developers overall? If you look at the delta between junior and mid level developers in most industries - ie enterprise dev not BigTech or adjacent - it’s really not that much
Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change
#100In the future, there will be two kinds of companies: 1. Those that encourage people to use AI agents aggressively to increase productivity. 2. Those that encourage people to use AI agents aggressively to be more productive while still hiring young people. Which type of company will be more innovative, productive, and successful in the long run?
I don't understand how you want innovation and productivity in a world with rapidly increasing population. We need less and less people while producing more and more people. Where am I wrong?
Depends what kind of people you need. For innovation you generally need exceptional people, and the probability of finding such a person is proportional to the total number of people available.