Reading through this thread, it feels like there are two main camps:
1. Those who see this as mostly macroeconomics + hype (high interest rates, weak economy, AI as a convenient excuse).
2. Those who believe AI is genuinely reshaping the work structure (seniors + AI can cover more ground, making juniors less necessary).
Maybe it’s both. The economy explains why companies are cautious now, but AI explains where they are cutting first — the “bottom rungs.”
The bigger question, then, is: even if AI isn’t the sole cause, what happens when a whole generation of juniors doesn’t get trained? That’s not just a company-level problem, it’s an industry-wide pipeline issue.
How do we avoid a tragedy of the commons here — where everyone optimizes short-term and we end up with fewer capable seniors in 10 years?
Agree, increased value and demand for seniors. But how will the market solve the generation of new seniors if juniors are getting less opportunities?
Take the software development sector as example: if we replace junior devs by AI coding agents and put senior devs to review the agent's work, how will we produce more seniors (with wide experience in the sector) if the juniors are not coding anymore?
If entry-level roles are shrinking, how should companies rethink talent development?
Without the traditional “bottom rungs,” how do we grow future seniors if fewer juniors ever get the chance to start?
New Harvard's study (62M workers, 285k firms) shows firms adopting generative AI cut junior hiring sharply while continuing to grow senior roles — eroding the bottom rungs of career ladders and reshaping how careers start.
Another way is maintaining the final balance field for the readings. Every new transaction you save it into the transactions table and adjust the balance field as well.
You can have a job to go through the transactions from time to time to save important balances that user would need (e.g: daily, monthly and quarterly balances).
My initial thought was that there would be high offer on some jobs while low offer on others, causing high demand for some jobs and low demand for others. That would cause differences in prices for each job.
However nobody would like to pay more than they charge for their own jobs, since they're compentent in that other task too. That would lead to people spending more time with tasks they don't like because they are more expense to hire someone to do it. Sad world.
To fix that, since everybody is competent in everything, they could organize themselves to rotate the jobs. Each person would be responsible for that job for a period of time, then they'd rotate. That could work with highly regulated jobs (like medicine or politics) but wouldn't work for others (like software development, gardening, etc). That would force a lot of energy to be spent in regulation. Less freedom. Sad world.
Finally, it doesn't matter if we're leveling people's competency by the highest or lowest level of competency available in any field, if they are always the same, that means there is no growth and there would be less networking and connection among people. A sad world.
On the other hand if they started at the same level of competency but could actually become more competent by exercising some job, than we'd create a difference. Given the time and the compounding effect, these differences would grow, causing people to look each other with respect and setting targets for themselves to reach higher levels of competency in a particular field.
The differences is what makes us special. They lead to growth. We should respect all the differences.
I organize my life in pillars. One of them is Occupational pillar, made of Profession, Projects and Leisure. Profession is my main occupation, but I have other side projects as well.
I usualy book time in advance to work on my projects, but I also work on them when I have some free time from my profession. If I'm too tired then I go for my leisure time (rest is also important).
About routines, I have a morning routine (that I do everyday when I wake up) and a night routine (before going to sleep). Other than that I have simply morning, afternoon and evening work slots. These work slots changes depending on the day.
I simple way to avoid the "what should I be doing now?" is starting doing "what should I do tomorrow?"
You don’t need to change anything. Also you don’t need to stick to one field only. Many of the most successful people in History were actually multi-talented and polymath. The most interested people I had a chance to talk to also had experience in multiple fields and activities. People like you are curious, and this is a virtue.
But if something is bugging you about this, maybe you could invest some time giving one step back and getting to know yourself better. This will make the exploration on your options more assertive. Study your personality and temperament. Read some biographies of successful people with the same personality of you. Consider options of fields that are more dynamic and let you work on a wide variety of fields (e.g.: entrepreneurship).
Instead of looking for the right activity for yourself, I’d suggest looking for the right mission or purpose for yourself. Doing any task in any fields but that is actually linked to a strong sense of purpose is much more fun.
1. Those who see this as mostly macroeconomics + hype (high interest rates, weak economy, AI as a convenient excuse).
2. Those who believe AI is genuinely reshaping the work structure (seniors + AI can cover more ground, making juniors less necessary).
Maybe it’s both. The economy explains why companies are cautious now, but AI explains where they are cutting first — the “bottom rungs.”
The bigger question, then, is: even if AI isn’t the sole cause, what happens when a whole generation of juniors doesn’t get trained? That’s not just a company-level problem, it’s an industry-wide pipeline issue.
How do we avoid a tragedy of the commons here — where everyone optimizes short-term and we end up with fewer capable seniors in 10 years?