Comment by motorest
6 days ago
Right, but even the way you opted to frame this discussion is based on the idea that there is a drop in demand for software engineers. You need less engineers, not more. A few can get more done, but you need fewer to accomplish your tasks too.
This is like claiming that there are fewer people who work in construction now than in the year 1000 because a machine can do what it would have literally taken 100 people to accomplish back then.
But what has happened instead is that we are now building much more buildings and much more complex ones than we ever would have even conceived of back then. The Three Gorges dam required the work of thousands or even tens of thousands of people when it was built, and it would have required the work of millions in the year 1000. But it didn't actually generate millions of jobs in the year 1000: it was in fact never even conceived of as a possibility, much less attempted.
Of course, the opposite can also happen. The number of carpenters has reduced to almost nothing, when it used to be a major profession, and there are many other professions that have entirely disappeared.
I didn't frame it that way - perhaps you are thinking of the person you replied to?
Nevertheless, I don't think they are trying to frame it that way, either. The point is that making software development easier can actually increase the demand of software engineers in some cases (where projects that were previously not considered due to budget constraints are now feasible).
> I didn't frame it that way - perhaps you are thinking of the person you replied to?
You did. You explicitly asserted the following.
> If a business has the budget for 1 or 2 engineers though, they might be able to task them with work that previously required 5-10 engineers (...).
In your own words, a project that would take 5-10 engineers is now feasible to be tackled with 1 or 2. Your own words.
> (...) The point is that making software development easier can actually increase the demand of software engineers in some cases (...)
I think that's somewhere between unrealistic and wishful thinking. Even in your problem statement, "making software development easier" lowers demand. Even if you argue that some positions might open where none existed before, the truth of the matter is that at the core of your scenario lies a drop in demand for software engineers. Shops who currently employ engineers won't need to retain as many to maintain their current level of productivity.
> In your own words, a project that would take 5-10 engineers is now feasible to be tackled with 1 or 2. Your own words.
That statement != lower demand for software engineers.
If a firm needs to perform project X that previously cost 10 engineers to do, but they only have the budget for 2, they will not tackle that project. Engineers used = 0.
However, if due to productivity enhancements with AI, the project can now be done with just 2 engineers, the company can now afford to tackle the project. Engineers used = 2.
That is the point that the person you were originally replying to was making.
> Even in your problem statement, "making software development easier" lowers demand.
Incorrect, as shown above.
> Even if you argue that some positions might open where none existed before, the truth of the matter is that at the core of your scenario lies a drop in demand for software engineers.
I see what you are trying to say, but it's not that clear cut. The fact is, no one knows what will actually happen to software engineering demand in the long run. Some scenarios will increase demand for engineers, others will decrease it. No one knows what the net demand will be, everyone is only guessing at this point.
2 replies →