[mywittyname]

This is a flawed argument, the current system gets rid of good performers all the time, and we have evidence of wage suppression, so employees don't get to negotiate on fair terms. You just get stuck in your pay band.

I agree it would be a good counter-factual, but I think the differences would be more around industry stability. Particularly, I think the ability for employees to push back against historical threats like off-shoring would have made the industry more appealing to younger people looking for something stable, and prevented this weird cycle of labor shortages causing salaries to explode, unqualified candidates pivoting to the industry using low cost training solutions (bootcamps, shitty masters programs), then companies failing to deliver on initiatives because the people they hired are poorly trained.

If we had 30 years of steady growth in CS education, then we'd have more experts in the field, doing a better job at executing. And it would likely cost companies less in wages as well. There are many industries where incredibly talented people make fairly modest salaries while producing world-changing products.

[kelseydh]

Enrolment in computer science skyrocketed five-fold from 2009 to 2024. Dropped 15% since, for obvious reasons.

[mywittyname]

Sure, but when I went to university (2008ish), the local major university had cut their CS program entirely due to lack of enrollment. So that's likely measuring tough-to-peak growth.

Also, statistics usually merge all computer and technology related majors into a single bucket.