8 ms·
Software Is Eating the Job Market
- gchokov 11y agoAmerica has the most job openings in 15 years - http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/09/news/economy/us-job-opening-highest-in-15-years/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/09/news/economy/us-job-opening-...
- rewqfdsa 11y agoNot per capita it doesn't. Come on, that's a novice error.
- mason240 11y agoEvery election since 2000: "More people voted for {Bush, Obama} than any President in history." There's more total voters, so...
- thwarted 11y agoEvery blockbuster movie released ever: "This movie made X millions of dollars!" Ticket prices keep going up, so...
- CSMastermind 11y agoThe chart on the first page of his link is "Job openings rate" which graphs the number of job opening by percentage of the population per year. How is that not per capita?
- rewqfdsa 11y agoWhat chart? The linked PDF goes back to May 2012. The title claims 15 years.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 11y agoWhat's the median wage of those jobs?
- meatysnapper 11y agoIronically, in the software job market for companies of say over 100 people, the desire to hire H1Bs is overwhelming due to the cheaper cost + lock-in.
- tsotha 11y agoYeah, I don't see any indication there's a shortage of software developers. There are a lot of 50+ year old software developers out of work, and a whole lot of companies refuse to hire people without a degree.
- hittudiv 11y agoNothing new.. If i can replace a security guard of my office for a cheaper more efficient, less error prone, robot/software instead of a human for half the price, WHY NOT! The exact same philosophy goes into "software is eating the world".
- toomuchtodo 11y agoIt works until you run out of consumers with cash, at which point it no longer works.
- wnevets 11y agosounds like capitalism is broken.
- jes 11y agoDo you mean people trading with others on a voluntary, win-win basis, or do you mean what today is labeled capitalism but is characterized by coercive force and cronyism?
- wnevets 11y agoI mean if efficiency leads to no one having jobs and thus cash to buy anything. That sounds like a broken system to me. >It works until you run out of consumers with cash, at which point it no longer works. edit: spelling
- juliangregorian 11y agoCapitalism always tends toward monopoly, there's only a difference in the minds of idealistic libertarians.
- merpnderp 11y agoOnly in the corporate welfare system we have today (see Chevrolet bailout). Without corporate welfare in the forms of subsidies, bailouts, and regulations, companies like Telsa would be destroying the major auto manufactures. What old major companies would still be around without un-capitlistic like interventions from the government?
- hittudiv 11y agoBut again, there is no shortage of engineers as the article says. The only problem is the quality. Atleast from what i saw in India people just take computer science as a degree because it pays more, not because they love to code.. There is a problem with this kind of people. People who LOVE what they do always over take people who dont.
- pyre 11y agoWell, the distinction between those that love what they do and those that don't isn't the only way to slice things. You don't have to love what you do to want to conduct yourself in a professional manner. Even if you aren't passionate about your work, so long as you take pride in it you won't be producing "crap code."
- M8 11y agoThere is a shortage of experienced engineers willing to work for an entry-level salary. Also there is "change your job for this fantastic opportunity - we gonna give you a 10% raise max". Somehow nobody is discussing a shortage of CEOs... Maybe because they are compensated fairly?
- niuzeta 11y agoThe non-fundamental shift about software is not that it's creating quality jobs at the cost of medium-quality jobs. It's also not that we are creating robots that will replace low-quality human workers. Because we still believe that as low-quality jobs go, higher-quality jobs will somehow appear. (you may not agree with this, even I am personally sceptical, but that's not the point I'm about to argue) But to get to the higher-quality jobs, you generally need experience. Not many employers are willing to hire someone and put him in a responsible position based off their potential alone. It follows, then, that we need substantial number of entry level positions to, so to speak, open the door for future potent workers. But those doors are closing at an alarming rate. Consider law firms. Discovery work(going through past records to find cases of relevance, law clauses of relevance) that used to be the "first year" work, is almost exclusively done by software. It's cheaper and more accurate. We may still need more quality lawyers, but as we remove the uses for inexperienced lawyers, we are decreasing the number of future experienced lawyers. Translation used to be a very non-trivial work. Not just for heavy-publishing prose or fiction, but even for simple phrases, if the need was great enough, we would hire an entry level translator. Now we would generally use Google translate for a phrase or two because it was "good enough" at a marginal price. The problem for prospect high-earning society isn't that software is eating jobs. As long as we are vain and greedy to aspire for higher quality, we will have those sophisticated jobs. The problem is that we are eating entry-level jobs, and in turn, creating an artificial scarce supply of "experienced" workers. And those "experienced" workers, now that they have put their foot into the door, and with the huge demand for work to be done, will enjoy the job market(aren't we all, as developers?), but what of those that are left, for no fault of their own?
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoThis article is written in such a pompous style that I can't immediately tell if it isn't tied to some form of public relations press release. The shortage of software developers is well-documented and increasingly discussed. It's certainly discussed, though its ostensible documentation is a subject of dispute [1]. The role of poor hiring practices is also often omitted. Far more than just a fad or buzzword, references to analytical and data-oriented skills appeared in 4 million postings over the last year – and data analysis is one of the most demanded skills by U.S. employers, according to Burning Glass data. That it is commonly cited as a term doesn't necessarily contradict that it's a buzzword. The aforementioned in-demand skills areas represent more of a structural shift than an issue du jour or passing trend. It is precisely the rapid, near daily change in software- and technology-related skills needs that necessitates new approaches to human capital development. While traditional long-term programs such as college degrees remain meaningful, new software platforms, languages, apps and tools rise annually. This is the classic equivocation of tools and techniques in action. New platforms and tools indeed do arise annually, but our techniques have remained in stasis, and are only being painfully reinvented in a rat race. See David A. Wheeler's essay "The Most Important Software Innovations" [2], and perhaps mentally add in CRDTs, I suppose. Who in the mainstream a few years ago had heard of Hadoop or Ruby? Many. Finally, it's curious to note given the assertion of software eating the job market or world, that many of the examples listed are media companies or companies whose business models are augmented by software (often via data entry, really), rather than engulfed by it. Fintech's an exception. But I didn't find any examples of technical infrastructure or CS and software research. [1] http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-i... [2] http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html
- russell 11y agoI think I have to quibble with Wheeler's attribution of the invention of the computer virus. Credit should go to John Brunner in his 1975 novel, "The Shockwave Rider". He invented the term worm for a sophisticated virus that could propagate through a network.
- jklinger410 11y agoI think we need this to happen. We need McDonald's to move to an entirely robotic store. We need every store to mechanize every thing they possibly can. That way we can increase our efficiency as a country by multitudes and get on with the nasty part of Universal Base Income. It has to happen. And for America, as a competitive nation, the sooner the better.
- s73v3r 11y agoSeriously? You honestly think that the political landscape is anywhere closer to accepting that kind of socialism? I'm gonna tell you right now that it's not. And even if that automation happens, it's not going to change anything regarding UBI. Here's the problem: If the automation happens before UBI gets into place, you are condemning those people to incredibly poor lives, and possibly homelessness and starvation.
- jklinger410 11y ago>Seriously? You honestly think that the political landscape is anywhere closer to accepting that kind of socialism? If businesses start automating everything, unemployment skyrockets, they're going to be pushed there. They won't have a choice. What do you predict? Half the country is unemployed, poverty is rampant, chaos in the streets, the fatcats in Washington and 1% just sit back and do nothing? >And even if that automation happens, it's not going to change anything regarding UBI. It has to. >Here's the problem: If the automation happens before UBI gets into place, you are condemning those people to incredibly poor lives, and possibly homelessness and starvation. Here's the problem: UBI won't get into place without automation. If it were up to me, I'd have it right now. But it's going to take motivation by SELF-INTEREST for people to realize that it HAS to happen. That self-interest? The generally deplorable state of their country. I just want society to progress, that's all. If we were running this country effectively many of the inventions we are only seeing come to market today would have been here long ago. Greed holds us back, greed drives us forward. So let's stop letting it hold us back, let's push for automation, and then watch the chips fall from there. If you don't think automation will change anything, how do you think it will change without automation? Isn't that what you're proposing?
- amelius 11y agoStill, if you have brains, it is much easier and less risky to make a decent living by becoming a doctor, or a lawyer.
- spelunker 11y agoIsn't the lawyer profession way over-saturated right now?
- ska 11y agoIn one sense, yes. On the other hand, many people take law degrees without any intention of working directly as lawyers, so "it's complicated" Really, it doesn't make any sense to lump the two careers together (at least in the US), anymore.
- j_baker 11y agoI don't think becoming a doctor or a lawyer are easy or low-risk. You have to go through years of school after which you are faced with a high probability of being unemployed. If you do find a job, you're likely going to work a crushing number of hours.
- Rainymood 11y agoWhat if your 'risk/reward' was based off 'happiness' instead of financial gain? I know I wouldn't be able stomach a 5+ year law degree and practice law for the rest of my life and be happy. I'd rather do something with numbers.
- kfk 11y agoSo, when we came up with agriculture some millenia ago, all those jobless people, those hunters/explorers/etc., did not stay jobless, did they? What about when we came up with machines in the 19th century? All those people in agriculture would still be jobless, but they are not, are they? Point is, every technological innovation will be absorbed in the long term. It's been historically this way for millennia, at least. People are very good at reinventing themselves as long as they have an incentive (food, money) to do so.
- joshuapants 11y agoThe term "past performance does not guarantee future results" comes to mind.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoA past trend being unbroken is a good heuristic for it to continue, but it is not proof that it will do so. The coming issue is that our software is getting better at replacing jobs faster than new jobs can be created. Not only is manual labor jobs being replaced, but so are knowledge jobs and creative jobs.
- kfk 11y ago> The coming issue is that our software is getting better at replacing jobs faster than new jobs can be created That is a pretty big assumption right there. There is no absolute amount of jobs being created, right? I mean, wouldn't you pay $1 per hour to have your shirts ironed? Then is it a problem of jobs count or jobs pay? It's pay, isn't it? If it's pay, then you are asking the wrong question. The question would be: is software making jobs cheaper? That is a very tough question. Implications are not that clear: from one end you cut jobs, from the other you are improving the productivity of your economy. With more productivity you get... you guessed it: more wealth. Then what's the problem? It's a problem of wealth distribution isn't it? It's wealth concentration in few segments of the population. That is a completely different problem then what you just said. Wealth distribution has nothing to do with value created and it's a topic in its own way. Bottom line: it's not about how many jobs you have, but how spread is the wealth your economy is creating and how spread it's going to be in the future.
- SovietDissident 11y agoI for one welcome our robot overlords. As a member of the technical class, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves. But seriously, the Luddite argument has been debunked many times. There's no reason to think this time it's any different. (for example: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite-fallacy/ http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite...) That doesn't mean there aren't real issues: 1. The inflexibility of the labor market makes it harder for those who have lost their jobs to find new ones. Further, if a company does not have the option to fire someone relatively easily (and cheaply), they will be less willing to take a chance on someone who may not exactly fit all of their criteria. 2. A monolithic, Prussian-inspired state educational system has not responded well to imparting new skills to people (or even basic competency, in some cases). Math and science curricula are notoriously weak in the U.S., yet that is where the growth and the high-paying jobs are. There are also opportunities in the trades, but these have been cut from most schools.
- m_tex 11y agoI have noticed that people LOVE to make the distinction between a programmer and a " software engineer", in every and any context/article. I am just waiting on one of those comments..
- niuzeta 11y agomy favorite distinction of the kind is "software developer" and "coder".
- fillskills 11y agoLast year I was working on trying to fix this - the constantly changing skill gap, specially in Software. My idea was that users could choose what they want to do, what they already know. And algorithmically show them what exactly they need to do. Stopped working on it for personal reaons. Would love feedback - FillSkills.com. While still lots to do on the backend, the UI is represntative of what I wanted to do.