
Software Is Eating the Job Market - Errorcod3
http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/09/software-is-eating-the-job-market/
======
niuzeta
The 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?

~~~
hittudiv
The ultimate winners here would be the software employees in my opinion. The
money flows from investors/public to the geeks. Dont know how the economy is
going to work out with that though.

~~~
santaclaus
The software employers are probably accumulating capital at a higher rate than
the software employees.

~~~
nostrademons
Probably, but an increasing number of software employees are striking out to
become software employers as well. Software is interesting in that virtually
all capital is human capital, and that small changes in the environment (a
shift from web to mobile, for example) can invalidate large swaths of
accumulated domain knowledge.

------
vezzy-fnord
This 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-i...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-
myth)

[2]
[http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html](http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html)

~~~
russell
I 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.

------
kfk
So, 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.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
A 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
> 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.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
My 'jobs are being replaced faster than created' has an implied 'and our
economic model doesn't otherwise change' to it when I state that it is a
problem.

Now you can disagree with the notion that jobs are being replaced faster than
created and even take the stance that such a thing will never happen. But
assuming you don't disagree that this will eventually happen (eventually here
meaning in our lifetime or maybe our children's; not counting thousands of
years down the road), then it is going to be a problem. Yes, it is only a
problem because of how our economic situation is set up, but all of that isn't
the bit that changed that created our problem. And yes, changing the economic
set up can resolve the problem. But the problem itself remains the same
(unless you disagree with it ever happening).

------
meatysnapper
Ironically, 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
Yeah, 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
Nothing 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
It works until you run out of consumers with cash, at which point it no longer
works.

~~~
mason240
Universal Basic Income is the best post-labor system I've read of.

Everything is still based on the same capitalism we have now, and the ~20% of
people who work will still be able to make income (meaning there will still be
incentive for enterprise).

~~~
ctdonath
Except you'll have increasing encroachment on motivation of the productive.

When Ronald Reagan was a top-billed Hollywood actor, he faced a ~90% tax
bracket. Rather than work hard only to see most of his earnings confiscated,
he'd make just a few movies and then enjoy those profits instead of spending
time on diminishing returns. Same for plenty of us motivated ones: if 80% are
living off the 20%, that will require taking so much from the 20% that most of
those will opt for doing something interesting and untaxable. The "seriously
productive" ones you're expecting to leech off MUST have lots of less-but-
still-productive people working for them - and you're tearing out the
incentive to do so. Raise my taxes enough (only to "redistribute" to those
opting to not work) and I'll switch to untaxable yet satisfying "off the grid"
living.

~~~
russell
I understand this issue of maintaining motivation under conditions of
artificial full employment was a problem under the Soviet system, but I'm not
sure it is necessarily a problem in a post-scarcity economy. For one thing
employment can be increased by reducing the work week. After all we went from
60 hour work weeks to 40 hour, even less in Europe where there are longer
vacations than in the US. Education over the past century has gone from mostly
primary only to mostly college, absorbing excess labor capacity.

I think the idea of 80% leeches living off the 20% productive is just wrong
headed. What we will see is the general quality of life improved for everyone.
Sure there will some that need to be entirely supported by the rest of us: the
homeless, the mentally ill, the infirm, the elderly. The real danger is that
the increases in productivity are being siphoned off by the rich and not being
equitably distributed. Capitalism is inherently an unstable system tending
towards monopoly and the destruction of the commons (pollution and the like)
and must be reasonably constrained.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I understand this issue of maintaining motivation under conditions of
> artificial full employment was a problem under the Soviet system, but I'm
> not sure it is necessarily a problem in a post-scarcity economy.

Post-scarcity economy is a contradiction in terms, and if post-scarcity
conditions existed, one wouldn't have any need to worry about economy -- which
is, after all, nothing but _the system by which scarce resources are
allocated_.

But we're not really discussing post-scarcity conditions, we're talking about
managing conditions where the rewards from production are increasingly
concentrated in the holders of capital and the returns to labor are mostly
extremely low with a (proportionally) very small set of high-value labor
positions available.

------
hittudiv
But 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
Well, 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."

------
jklinger410
I 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
Seriously? 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
>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?

------
gchokov
America has the most job openings in 15 years -
[http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/09/news/economy/us-job-
opening-...](http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/09/news/economy/us-job-opening-
highest-in-15-years/index.html)

~~~
rewqfdsa
Not per capita it doesn't. Come on, that's a novice error.

~~~
mason240
Every election since 2000: "More people voted for {Bush, Obama} than any
President in history." There's more total voters, so...

~~~
thwarted
Every blockbuster movie released ever: "This movie made X millions of
dollars!" Ticket prices keep going up, so...

------
fillskills
Last 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.

------
m_tex
I 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
my favorite distinction of the kind is "software developer" and "coder".

------
amelius
Still, if you have brains, it is much easier and less risky to make a decent
living by becoming a doctor, or a lawyer.

~~~
spelunker
Isn't the lawyer profession way over-saturated right now?

~~~
ska
In 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.

------
SovietDissident
I 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...](http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite-
fallacy/))

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.

