"it's also true that being able to program could improve pretty much any job. Even a janitor could develop, say, a logistics application to optimize his path th

"it's also true that being able to program could improve pretty much any job. Even a janitor could develop, say, a logistics application to optimize his path through the building he cleans, or build a roomba to vacuum for him." If a janitor develops the skills to go that far, why would he still be a janitor? I'm not saying that to be glib. I'm saying that because coding is a specialty that requires a great bit of practice to get functionally good at. The time and effort invested in getting good at programming just isn't worth it for many professions, whereas hiring specialists to do the programming is. Sure, our hypothetical janitor would be able to do some cool stuff if he could develop apps. But if he can develop apps, economically speaking, he should be transitioning into higher-value and higher-paying services. (Unless he wants to disrupt custodial services with a startup -- but not every janitor should found a startup. That would be impractical.) Saying "everyone should be able to code" is a bit like saying everyone should be able to do college-level statistics. I can't think of a single profession that wouldn't benefit from a college-level understanding of statistics. But not everyone's cut out for it; it's not fundamentally necessary to every profession; and in the context of a market economy, it functions better as a knowledge-specialty than as a broad foundational skill. (This isn't a flawless analogy for any number of reasons, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.)