[amelius]

> at best you can have AI doing 90% of the work as long as an expert developer is driving things.

But that puts 90% of developers out of a job.

And I don't see why it couldn't become 99%.

[JimDabell]

No, you are ignoring my central point by assuming that the amount of software that is being produced remains fixed. Every other time we have increased software engineer productivity, we have responded by producing more software.

[pulse7]

So it's similar to "Andy and Bill's Law" [1]: "What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away".

If Windows would stay the same (and not grow) it would be much faster on newer CPUs...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_and_Bill%27s_law

[amelius]

Yes, it addresses your second point.

I'm not saying your entire point is invalid, just that half of it is not correct, and so things might turn out worse than expected.

[poidos]

It only puts 90% of developers out of a job if the demand for software stays flat.

[aurareturn]

Exactly. I see software engineering going the way of accounting or lawyer.

Every business needs an accountant and a lawyer on hand. In the past, hiring one software engineer to build custom software for your small or midsized business was not worth it. What can one software engineer build? Maybe an MVP in a year? No chance it was worth it for the vast majority of businesses. Outside of corporations or tech companies, employing a software dev was simply not a thing.

Nowadays, your kindergarten might employ a full time or part time software engineer to build custom software. One dev can build a lot more a lot faster.

That said, I think the average or below average dev won’t earn $200k/year anymore. However, the top devs will earn more than ever. If AI increases an average dev’s productivity by 10x, then it will increase a top tier dev’s by 100x.

[vanuatu]

It's even better than accounting or lawyers, because good software engineers can build incredible businesses from scratch instead of being tied to the number of businesses that exist

SWEs are more leveraged than ever and we've seen comp drastically rise for top performers

[euwuw]

“ However, the top devs will earn more than ever. ”

No they won’t. Productivity does not determine the wage rate.

[aurareturn]

It’s already happening. Top tier devs have two ways of earning way more than before:

1. They can build and sell their own products or services. We are already seeing 1-2 person software companies earning real money. Top devs don’t have to stay in corporate if they think they can generate more revenue on their own.

2. When companies get rid of their B devs without losing productivity, they can pay their A devs more.

I’m in the #2 camp right now. My team shrank by 50% through attrition in the last year. We didn’t hire anyone new when someone left. My pay has increased.

[euwuw]

lol you’re a developer so I can see why you’re desperately making this argument and hope it lasts.

I’m a CEO and I don’t see this at all. There will be more consolidation for whom the economics are viable to pay good wage rates. The rest? Nah.

The crap ones will be out of a job. The best ones will fight fiercely amongst each other to keep their jobs and existing wage rates. Let alone increase.

[aurareturn]

I’m not desperate at all. It was my company who was desperate to keep me and gave me a huge pay rise. I was already making top tier money.

I threatened to leave to start my own company unless they gave me enough money to make me not want to do it. They did.

[mbrumlow]

Your company might fail then. Because I won’t be fighting to work at your company, I’ll just compete with your company and get paid what I deserve.

We already have CEOs is vendors trying to scare people away from vibe coding their contract away, while I diligently vibe code their contract away.

Not much new here as my entire career has been coding away 3rd party contracts, and it’s now easier than ever.

[borski]

It does, in the higher echelons of performance / seniority.

Junior wages won’t change, and may even get lower.

But, at least at present, the top devs are earning more than ever as their skills are much more leveraged.

I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

[vanuatu]

curious as to why

most top swe comp comes from equity in the company, which benefits from productivity

not only that but the leveraged nature of swe means top performers are in perpetual shortage and low performers contribute negative productivity

anecdotally weve seen comp rise as the best candidates have multiple competing offers as well as the freedom to start their own business

[aurareturn]

Because companies can hire one great Dev for $300k instead of 5 mediocre ones for $150k each and get better results.

[vanuatu]

That supports my point right?

Top devs make more than before

[amelius]

> “ However, the top devs will earn more than ever. ”

The AI companies will skim all the extra profits.

[swid]

Because there is so much money for kindergarten teachers, paying an extra salary for a software dev for every kindergarten will certainly lead to better outcomes. The computer programs will make up for the lost teacher economically by teaching the children instead of people, raising the market share of my local kindergarten, or enticing people to have more babies. \s

[SecretDreams]

How much does the appetite for good* software need to grow to not have loss of jobs?

[the_af]

> It only puts 90% of developers out of a job if the demand for software stays flat.

...or if there's an increase of demand for software, but mostly of the kind that can be completely automated by AI, no need for developers.