3 ms·
What you're seeing is really the same pattern as the late 90's dotcom boom-bust. Then, too, TONS of people (and their sisters and mothers) went into the "Inform
by speby 5y ago
What you're seeing is really the same pattern as the late 90's dotcom boom-bust. Then, too, TONS of people (and their sisters and mothers) went into the "Information Superhighway" to become "WebMasters" and develop "Web Sites" for businesses large and small as more and more money plowed into those companies and a rush for talent, including not-very-much talent was drawn into the field because of the $. When the dotcom bust happened, and believe me, there will be another (even if different) correction again in the future, many of those same people will exit the field from layoffs or finding another job in tech again becoming hard. They'll migrate to another field that pays OK that they can find their thing.
And then, rinse-and-repeat, we'll probably see the same cycle again in the 2020s thru the 2030s.
- Mezzie 5y agoYes and no. I remember the dotcom boom-bust a bit, although I was a child at the time. I think a lot of crypto and web3 stuff is where the dotcoms were in the 90s: A lot of people chasing the money and who are aware that this is a Big Deal but we haven't figured out the specifics so everybody's rushing in because of first-mover advantage. FAANG and dev positions in general, though, I think people are treating like they used to treat being a doctor/lawyer/accountant: It's a good, steady living and it will always be around. That's very different from the dot-com boom, which was way more a gold rush, even at the entry level. ("They're willing to pay HOW MUCH for the stuff I was playing around with?") Somebody who started at Google in 1999 (or Amazon, or even FB in 2006) is very different than most people entering those companies now. The dotcom was high risk high reward like modern web3/crypto, whereas modern swe positions are low risk medium high reward, which makes them great for people who are more risk averse for whatever reason.