[college_physics]

There was a sentiment in an earlier discussion [0] that this is "a war on tech wages" but for years the argument was that tech will make many other jobs obsolete (which would justify wage growth for tech employees).

Remember, e.g., the Jack Ma era and his proclamations that we should all get into arts because tech will take care of the rest?

Is the current round of layoffs an admission that the "software will eat the world" scenario will not happen or an indication that it can be done with even fewer tech employees?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34417750

[lbotos]

It’s been said time and time again.

During growth, you make big plans and you invest in growth. You hire people to build new things.

Oh snap. Growth is gone.

You cancel your lofty plans and you stick with things that are working. Anyone who was hired for grand plan things is a burden and let go. Sure. Some under performers too, but I don’t think this current wave in the cycle is the end of software eating the world.

[JackFr]

When money is cheap it makes sense to invest in low ROI ideas. When monety stops being cheap it makes sense to stop.

[3-cheese-sundae]

But money is still cheap, at least in the US. The US inflation rate was 6.5% at the end of 2022, and the interest rate was 4.5%. It's just not as cheap.

[iLemming]

The inflation rate in 2020 was 1.4. And MSFT is laying off less than 5% of its workforce.

[bamboozled]

But the arts are being automated too lol

[samspenc]

Yeah Stable Diffusion, Midjourney and the ilk are going to automate away some of the art jobs, or at least some of the workflow involved in art (concept art etc)

[mistrial9]

related: book tour by Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctrow to discuss their new book, Chokepoint Capitalism! -- This conversation will explore a call to action for the creative class and labor movement to rally against the power of Big Tech and Big Media.

[bamboozled]

I think it's just going to turn people back into farmers and just doing things that are necessary for their survival rather than participating in an economy that no longer gives them a way to provide for themselves, people will just do what is required to get by.

[randomdata]

Neither. The assumption is that, due to various reasons, the world in need of eating will shrink next year (if not later this year). As software requires a not insignificant amount of time to develop, work intended to eat next year is in development now, which means less work to go around compared to last year.

It is quite possible that these businesses are wrong about the future. They have been before. But as predicting the future is impossible, one has to make an educated guess and live with it.

[jstx1]

> Is the current round of layoffs an admission that the "software will eat the world" scenario will not happen or an indication that it can be done with even fewer tech employees?

Either statement is reading too much into it. It's a reaction to economic conditions and the state of the labor market.

[skinnymuch]

Or it’s a reaction to others laying off and not rational at all.

[jstx1]

That’s what I meant by state of the labor market.