> it is that we don't need as many programmers. This sounds a bit like a variant of the old "lump of labor" misconception. There's no such thing as needing pr

> it is that we don't need as many programmers. This sounds a bit like a variant of the old "lump of labor" misconception. There's no such thing as needing programmers. In the long run, economic decisions in markets are made at the margin, and increases in marginal productivity make labor more valuable rather than less. This induces rather than reduces consumption. There are caveats of course: the benefits of induced consumption may not be distributed to all devs evenly, or may not be distributed evenly between capital and labor. But the idea that making programmers more productive reduces the need for programmers - ceteris paribus - is mistaken. The degree to which the development market will expand as a result of increases in developer productivity ultimately depends on the elasticity of demand for development. But it's hard to say the market is anywhere close to saturated. This might come as a surprise to some in the HN bubble, but programming is so inefficient and difficult to engage right now that the default way for businesses to build software and software systems is through untrained office workers and consultants hacking together Excel formulas, no-code builders and workflow configurations in giant ERPs and CRMs.