4 ms·
As long as there are more people that will do a given job for less, we're all replaceable. There's just no incentive to raise the wages or standards.
by jdmtheNth 4y ago
As long as there are more people that will do a given job for less, we're all replaceable. There's just no incentive to raise the wages or standards.
- bdcravens 4y agoNot a popular take, but a correct one. A correct Javascript class runs the same whether it was written for $5/hr or $150/hr. Obviously there are certain advantages of efficiency and communication, but over time those advantages erode, especially with increased WFH and the like.
- vintermann 4y ago"A correct JavaScript class", hah. Good luck if you think that's what it's about, chief.
- bdcravens 4y agoI don't; I've been a developer since 1999. Those who have remained employed through the same downturns know this as well. However, there are plenty of developers whose jobs consist of 90-95% of work that a remote resource could easily do, and that 5-10% could be turned over to a short-term contractor (or consolidated). If a company saves 75%, 50% inefficiency is still a net positive. Hint: if someone describe themselves as "{some single language} Developer", they should always be concerned. Doubly so if they came out of a cookie cutter bootcamp.
- vintermann 4y agoOh, but there aren't.
- sixothree 4y agoAnd when we are literally all replaced, what then? Seriously. What are we going to do when we are all replaced? We don't have support structures.
- hackerlight 4y agoThat's where welfare or a UBI is supposed to come in. If societal prosperity is something we care about, that's a much better mechanism for support than forcing companies to hire people that they don't need or want. Better to have lean and efficient and market-based enterprise that are taxed to provide welfare, rather than industries stunted by union activity.