Global Economy Approaches Soft Landing, but Risks Remain(imf.org)
imf.org
Global Economy Approaches Soft Landing, but Risks Remain
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/01/30/global-economy-approaches-soft-landing-but-risks-remain
121 comments
Funny enough, I was just watching a video from Peter Zeihan, where he's talking about most of the Western world is currently in recession (or close to it). Noteworthy is that North America is doing ok.
The rest of the western world was squeezed by oil/gas shortages while the US just pumped more.
Most times in history the real crash only happens a while after rate increases stop, sometimes only after the first reduction. Famous last words I guess.
Define "crash". Do you mean a real crash? Or just a recession?
There's a huge difference between a normal business cycle, and, say, 2008 or 1897. In a normal cycle, there's often a lag time between where the economy actually is (especially viewed with hindsight) and where the Fed policy is. By the time the Fed starts reducing rates, business activity has already started slowing down, and six months later they will say that we're in a recession.
In a real crash, I'm less clear on the dynamics, but I think that soon after the economy starts slowing down, some speculative bubble pops because people figure out that it's not going to keep going up forever. There's not necessarily a clear cause-and-effect or timing link between that and interest rates, so far as I know.
There's a huge difference between a normal business cycle, and, say, 2008 or 1897. In a normal cycle, there's often a lag time between where the economy actually is (especially viewed with hindsight) and where the Fed policy is. By the time the Fed starts reducing rates, business activity has already started slowing down, and six months later they will say that we're in a recession.
In a real crash, I'm less clear on the dynamics, but I think that soon after the economy starts slowing down, some speculative bubble pops because people figure out that it's not going to keep going up forever. There's not necessarily a clear cause-and-effect or timing link between that and interest rates, so far as I know.
I think that's the problem, there aren't hard and fast definitions. I think "economic depression" is an unsettling word, so it keeps switching to "recession" or "slowdown" in the same way that what was once a "moron" or "mongoloid" has become "intellectual disability". I think the powers that be worry that if they announce "we're in a depression right now" it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy to a degree. And eventually, one day if not already, they'll be equally hesitant to use the word "recession" at all.
As far as a bubble, yes, it's the evaporation of a huge amount of money. 1929 stock market crash -> all that market cap was lost. In the 2008 crash, home values crashed thus losing a vast amount of hypothetical worth. We were/are/will see a similar real estate crash in the corporate/office sector since the value of these rental units has plummeted post-covid-work-from-home.
As far as a bubble, yes, it's the evaporation of a huge amount of money. 1929 stock market crash -> all that market cap was lost. In the 2008 crash, home values crashed thus losing a vast amount of hypothetical worth. We were/are/will see a similar real estate crash in the corporate/office sector since the value of these rental units has plummeted post-covid-work-from-home.
As opposed to "We landed, and it was a soft landing. No more risks remaining"?
Doh.
Doh.
[deleted]
[deleted]
samaritano(2)
dkjaudyeqooe(1)
Soft landing except for us in tech who have been unemployed for months or years
On the flip side, tech was booming during Covid when a ton of people in retail, restaurants were affected.
All industries and all sectors can’t always be booming without there being a perpetual bubble.
We have trouble finding good engineers to hire, so I’m skeptical when I hear people having trouble finding engineering jobs. My assumption (could be wrong) is a lot of people having trouble getting work haven’t adjusted to “the new norm” whether that be decreased salary levels, changing WFH expectations, etc.
E.g. while I might have been open to hiring a digital nomad in 2021, I’m not open to that anymore because there are more “normal” candidates out there who aren’t asking for special treatment or unrealistically high salaries.
All industries and all sectors can’t always be booming without there being a perpetual bubble.
We have trouble finding good engineers to hire, so I’m skeptical when I hear people having trouble finding engineering jobs. My assumption (could be wrong) is a lot of people having trouble getting work haven’t adjusted to “the new norm” whether that be decreased salary levels, changing WFH expectations, etc.
E.g. while I might have been open to hiring a digital nomad in 2021, I’m not open to that anymore because there are more “normal” candidates out there who aren’t asking for special treatment or unrealistically high salaries.
> We have trouble finding good engineers to hire
And then
> while I might have been open to hiring a digital nomad in 2021, I’m not open to that anymore because there are more “normal” candidates out there who aren’t asking for special treatment or unrealistically high salaries.
Maybe these things are related.
“Normal” has changed. The engineers I know have moved away and are very happy with the flexibility of their new WFH lifestyle and the work life balance it provides. And they will refuse to work for organizations like yours that continue to hold regressive views on WFH.
And then
> while I might have been open to hiring a digital nomad in 2021, I’m not open to that anymore because there are more “normal” candidates out there who aren’t asking for special treatment or unrealistically high salaries.
Maybe these things are related.
“Normal” has changed. The engineers I know have moved away and are very happy with the flexibility of their new WFH lifestyle and the work life balance it provides. And they will refuse to work for organizations like yours that continue to hold regressive views on WFH.
> And they will refuse to work for organizations like yours that continue to hold regressive views on WFH.
Which is 100% their right! (But don’t then go on tech forums complaining about how difficult it is to find a job)
PS. My company is fully remote (and was remote pre-Covid) so I definitely don’t have “regressive” views on WFH. I rejected a candidate recently who said they wanted to work out of a van while driving the US. As a 100% remote company I’m cool with people working from different places occasionally, but at a minimum I want our employees to have a desk. I don’t want to hire someone for $150k who’s working from the back of a van. I might have hired them in 2021, but in 2024 not having a permanent residence to have an office in is a disqualification.
Which is 100% their right! (But don’t then go on tech forums complaining about how difficult it is to find a job)
PS. My company is fully remote (and was remote pre-Covid) so I definitely don’t have “regressive” views on WFH. I rejected a candidate recently who said they wanted to work out of a van while driving the US. As a 100% remote company I’m cool with people working from different places occasionally, but at a minimum I want our employees to have a desk. I don’t want to hire someone for $150k who’s working from the back of a van. I might have hired them in 2021, but in 2024 not having a permanent residence to have an office in is a disqualification.
What an arbitrary limitation.
So you don't hire on merit or what your candidate is able to deliver. You hire on desk space
So you don't hire on merit or what your candidate is able to deliver. You hire on desk space
I 100% acknowledge that there is likely someone out there who is an amazing “10x developer” that works out of a van.
But, on average, not having a desk means lower productivity.
But, on average, not having a desk means lower productivity.
Yea I think normal is back a lot more than you want to believe.
Office occupancy levels in SF beg to differ.
[deleted]
What do you consider "unrealistically high", because I find that hard to apply to what I'm seeing. For example, I was recently contacted about a bay area principal engineer spot for 150-190k. To give some context, a fast food place near my house has signs in the window offering 160k+ for managers.
Maybe fast food is paying exceptionally well these days, but I have my doubts.
Maybe fast food is paying exceptionally well these days, but I have my doubts.
I cannot imagine the stress of being a fast food manager. I wouldn't survive a week.
> What do you consider "unrealistically high“
Sorry, poor choice of words. I should have said “salary expectations above current market salaries”.
I’ve interviewed people is 2 yrs experience (2 yrs out of college, or 2 years after doing a bootcamp) asking $160k fully remote outside Bay Area.
Basically anyone that entered the tech workforce during the COVID boom has really high expectations around compensation and benefits that are unlikely to be met in future jobs now that the market has cooled/stablized.
Sorry, poor choice of words. I should have said “salary expectations above current market salaries”.
I’ve interviewed people is 2 yrs experience (2 yrs out of college, or 2 years after doing a bootcamp) asking $160k fully remote outside Bay Area.
Basically anyone that entered the tech workforce during the COVID boom has really high expectations around compensation and benefits that are unlikely to be met in future jobs now that the market has cooled/stablized.
I've started interviewing this last two weeks and have 6 interviews scheduled for staff FANG remote. Meta, Amazon, Netflix are all hiring.
Depends on the chain, management at McD and Burger King was always rather well paid. Also high turn-over high pressure.
Retail management means you're on call 24/7 even when you think you're on vacation. And even when another manager is nominally running the store. Also you're not totally responsible for hiring, and underperformers can and do get stuck on your team. And also you're responsible for your store hitting its sales targets regardless of where it's located and what changes in the environment.
In practice, this sounds no different than most engineering manager roles outside of very tech-savvy organizations.
Does the bay area role also come with equity? I doubt that's true for the restaurant manager.
Probably, but the comparison wasn't meant to imply that fast food is a reasonable alternative. The point was to illustrate how bad things in tech are that recognizable companies (Oracle in this case) are hiring for extremely senior positions at salaries that make fast food look even remotely competitive. It's a very different market from two years ago.
I think what's happened is compensation packages have normalized or converged.
If you live in an HCoL area, you're probably not very happy about this, but if you live in a LCoL area these compensation packages are excellent.
If you live in an HCoL area, you're probably not very happy about this, but if you live in a LCoL area these compensation packages are excellent.
[deleted]
> We have trouble finding good engineers to hire
> while I might have been open to hiring a digital nomad in 2021, I’m not open to that anymore
Might be related?
> while I might have been open to hiring a digital nomad in 2021, I’m not open to that anymore
Might be related?
From what I've seen freelancing for more than 10 years, most companies will rather go bankrupt than allow remote working.
The only thing that can explain this perfectly well in my opinion is: manager ego. As simple as that.
The only thing that can explain this perfectly well in my opinion is: manager ego. As simple as that.
I've had the opposite experience as a contractor and FTE...
I've been remote for 20 years, and every year it seems to get easier / more normal...
General rule: When your explanation is that everyone else is an idiot, it almost always means that your view is far too simplistic.
We have no issues with hiring at the company I work for, dozens of good CVs for each open position.
The difference seems to be that we don't have a RTO policy and actually encourage WFH a lot, you just need to live in a country we have a registered entity for tax reasons, so no digital nomads either.
Maybe your new normal isn't working, you're paying the price for it.
The difference seems to be that we don't have a RTO policy and actually encourage WFH a lot, you just need to live in a country we have a registered entity for tax reasons, so no digital nomads either.
Maybe your new normal isn't working, you're paying the price for it.
> We have trouble finding good engineers to hire...
You're not looking hard enough.
You're not looking hard enough.
> whether that be decreased salary levels
Who can afford to be taking smaller salaries when everything is getting more expensive?
Who can afford to be taking smaller salaries when everything is getting more expensive?
> We have trouble finding good engineers to hire
> unrealistically high salaries
That's expected if you don't want to pay the salaries your candidates want. Admitting to not being able to find qualified workers is admitting fundamental incompetence as an employer and as a business. Hiring and retaining workers is the foundation of any business that employs people.
Haven't it struck you that maybe you are unrealistic about salaries if you are having trouble hiring?
That's expected if you don't want to pay the salaries your candidates want. Admitting to not being able to find qualified workers is admitting fundamental incompetence as an employer and as a business. Hiring and retaining workers is the foundation of any business that employs people.
Haven't it struck you that maybe you are unrealistic about salaries if you are having trouble hiring?
This.
Of course the comment is not just paradoxal, it's contradictory.
Behind a basically bias mind, blinded even by the irresistible desire to basically pay little, bank fat profits, and do nothing.
It's an amazing time to be alive. To see how broader access to Information turning against those who used to think the asymmetry would last forever.
Of course the comment is not just paradoxal, it's contradictory.
Behind a basically bias mind, blinded even by the irresistible desire to basically pay little, bank fat profits, and do nothing.
It's an amazing time to be alive. To see how broader access to Information turning against those who used to think the asymmetry would last forever.
It's really funny to see both "times have changed" and "we can't find anyone" in one comment. And it really summarises the attitude of business post-covid. "Doing more with less" is just childish if you think about it. I'm going to do what I like, and there are not going to be any consequences. Oh, there are consequences? That definitely not because what I did.
The reality is many people are taking pay cuts especially on the junior side of the spectrum.
People were hiring devs straight out of bootcamps with zero experience for $160k a couple years ago.
Sorry but I can’t hire someone and match their previous salary (from a company that fired them) with a total of 2 yrs experience.
People were hiring devs straight out of bootcamps with zero experience for $160k a couple years ago.
Sorry but I can’t hire someone and match their previous salary (from a company that fired them) with a total of 2 yrs experience.
Consider the same line of thinking for other cost centers of your business. Would a restaurant say they're having trouble finding produce just because they don't want to pay the prices asked for? Would a sawmill say they're having trouble finding lumber when they don't want to pay the prices asked.
If the developers you want to hire cannot produce enough for your company to make a profit at the salary levels they are asking, this is a hint that your company is not profitable enough to continue functioning. That happens sometimes when margins get thinner. The equation between what customers are willing to pay for the work, and what profit the company desires, and what salaries the workforce demands for doing the work, doesn't give a positive result anymore. So the business model doesn't work anymore.
Otherwise you'd hire them right? If the company will make a profit from their work. Or are you foregoing profits out of spite?
Edit: I say all this because I used to be incompetent at hiring and my business at the time suffered as a consequence. My mistake was that I was looking to hire people through networks of friends and family, instead of plain old job ads. Sounds like a dumb mistake, but as mentioned I was incompetent. Once I started publishing ads I had no problem finding a lot of good candidates. Hiring and retaining employees is a skill, the most important skill of a business owner.
If the developers you want to hire cannot produce enough for your company to make a profit at the salary levels they are asking, this is a hint that your company is not profitable enough to continue functioning. That happens sometimes when margins get thinner. The equation between what customers are willing to pay for the work, and what profit the company desires, and what salaries the workforce demands for doing the work, doesn't give a positive result anymore. So the business model doesn't work anymore.
Otherwise you'd hire them right? If the company will make a profit from their work. Or are you foregoing profits out of spite?
Edit: I say all this because I used to be incompetent at hiring and my business at the time suffered as a consequence. My mistake was that I was looking to hire people through networks of friends and family, instead of plain old job ads. Sounds like a dumb mistake, but as mentioned I was incompetent. Once I started publishing ads I had no problem finding a lot of good candidates. Hiring and retaining employees is a skill, the most important skill of a business owner.
> Would a restaurant say they're having trouble finding produce just because they don't want to pay the prices asked for?
Yes, if there were another produce supplier offering half the price for a better product.
I was probably wording my comments too strongly in this thread. It's not like we can't find anyone to hire. Just that we typically can find really good people if we spend just a tad bit longer rather than jumping on the first decent candidate.
In 2021, you basically had to jump on the first decent candidate because if you didn't they'd be snatched up by another company within days. In this market, you can afford to hire slower, talk to more people, and find the right fit.
Also, having hired and worked with dozens of people, I've seen zero correlation between salary and performance + employee retention. Paying someone more salary is not at all correlated with higher performance or higher employee retention (once you're above the 50th percentile). Everyone at our company is above 50th percentile in salary benchmarks, some people are at 70th or 90th percentile, and their performance + retention is no different than people paid 50th percentile.
TLDR: Throwing money at a problem usually doesn't fix it. Same applies in hiring. Throwing money at people doesn't make them perform better or stay at your company longer, once you're paying at least 50th percentile salaries.
Yes, if there were another produce supplier offering half the price for a better product.
I was probably wording my comments too strongly in this thread. It's not like we can't find anyone to hire. Just that we typically can find really good people if we spend just a tad bit longer rather than jumping on the first decent candidate.
In 2021, you basically had to jump on the first decent candidate because if you didn't they'd be snatched up by another company within days. In this market, you can afford to hire slower, talk to more people, and find the right fit.
Also, having hired and worked with dozens of people, I've seen zero correlation between salary and performance + employee retention. Paying someone more salary is not at all correlated with higher performance or higher employee retention (once you're above the 50th percentile). Everyone at our company is above 50th percentile in salary benchmarks, some people are at 70th or 90th percentile, and their performance + retention is no different than people paid 50th percentile.
TLDR: Throwing money at a problem usually doesn't fix it. Same applies in hiring. Throwing money at people doesn't make them perform better or stay at your company longer, once you're paying at least 50th percentile salaries.
> while I might have been open to hiring a digital nomad in 2021, I’m not open to that anymore because there are more “normal” candidates out there
The folks who took advantage of the ability to leave the city and get a house somewhere other than the Bay or one of the three other cities tech was hiring in are older folks for whom moving back to be near family had some resonance. They've now had 4 years to build a life there.
Of course you can't find talented engineers who want to uproot their families and rip their kids away from their cousins, schools, and friends to go live in an apartment in a city and commute to whatever horseshit open floor plan dorm simulator you're calling an office, and especially not if you're not willing to pay an "unrealistically high salary." You'd need to pay me an unrealistically high salary to consider that, too.
As usual, there's not a skill gap or a worker shortage, there's an unwillingness to pay talent what it's worth.
The folks who took advantage of the ability to leave the city and get a house somewhere other than the Bay or one of the three other cities tech was hiring in are older folks for whom moving back to be near family had some resonance. They've now had 4 years to build a life there.
Of course you can't find talented engineers who want to uproot their families and rip their kids away from their cousins, schools, and friends to go live in an apartment in a city and commute to whatever horseshit open floor plan dorm simulator you're calling an office, and especially not if you're not willing to pay an "unrealistically high salary." You'd need to pay me an unrealistically high salary to consider that, too.
As usual, there's not a skill gap or a worker shortage, there's an unwillingness to pay talent what it's worth.
Hmm. The way you put that, it sounds like you could to some degree "pay" talent by allowing WFH rather than with dollars. I wonder to what degree that is true.
It is absolutely the case that working conditions are part of the overall negotiation for talent. You start offering folks $1M/yr cash and I promise they'll move back to the city and RTO for you. You let them keep working remote and enjoy the work/life balance, and you can get 'em a whole lot cheaper than that.
yeah - I think people just didn't realize tech has cycles like all industries, because this is literally the first 'down' in like 14 years...
>We have trouble finding good engineers to hire
> I might have been open to hiring a digital nomad in 2021, I’m not open to that anymore because there are more “normal” candidates out there who aren’t asking for special treatment or unrealistically high salaries.
Let me rephrase.
"I'm not open to hire people who refuse to be dictated by me, the boss, how they should live their lives. I'm now demanding again that my employees get stuck with locality market constraints as they tend to play in my favor.
Except that, I struggle to find good enginners. I find normal people who aren't good enough to make demands though, thanks to the coordinated massive layoffs, so I will keep fighting."
See, workers, those who truly do the work that is. Have for the most part figured out the manipulations.
A layoff squeeze, or two or even 10 to pressure the job market, to make demands for fairer salary be under control, simply won't work. Temporarily, maybe. As people do need not just to eat but also pay back mortgages. But what it did mostly is creating more noise for the employer side. Great enginners don't get laid off. Those who do know usually very well their value, get recommendations and a new role in no time.
The economy isn't collapsing, demands is there otherwise there wouldn't be an inflation to fight , we need more workers than ever.
the capital refuses to accept a certain reality. That is that Workers will continue to have access to more information. Hence making it futile to exercise manipulations.
I'm for free markets and find the disguised attacks and ambushes against the "working class" appalling. Workers aren't even unionized. They just individually have neurons and access to the internet. The same who have been promoting the idea that we better all get richer finally realized that's not fun, that fewer should be much richer and the rest poorer
> I might have been open to hiring a digital nomad in 2021, I’m not open to that anymore because there are more “normal” candidates out there who aren’t asking for special treatment or unrealistically high salaries.
Let me rephrase.
"I'm not open to hire people who refuse to be dictated by me, the boss, how they should live their lives. I'm now demanding again that my employees get stuck with locality market constraints as they tend to play in my favor.
Except that, I struggle to find good enginners. I find normal people who aren't good enough to make demands though, thanks to the coordinated massive layoffs, so I will keep fighting."
See, workers, those who truly do the work that is. Have for the most part figured out the manipulations.
A layoff squeeze, or two or even 10 to pressure the job market, to make demands for fairer salary be under control, simply won't work. Temporarily, maybe. As people do need not just to eat but also pay back mortgages. But what it did mostly is creating more noise for the employer side. Great enginners don't get laid off. Those who do know usually very well their value, get recommendations and a new role in no time.
The economy isn't collapsing, demands is there otherwise there wouldn't be an inflation to fight , we need more workers than ever.
the capital refuses to accept a certain reality. That is that Workers will continue to have access to more information. Hence making it futile to exercise manipulations.
I'm for free markets and find the disguised attacks and ambushes against the "working class" appalling. Workers aren't even unionized. They just individually have neurons and access to the internet. The same who have been promoting the idea that we better all get richer finally realized that's not fun, that fewer should be much richer and the rest poorer
Things are different now. The reality is that probably close to 80-90% of self-described software engineers face permnanet unemployment as they will be replaced by low paid "prompt engineers", likey from India. It's already happening and it's happening at scale. The top 10% will see enourmous income gains as they will be the only people left who actually know what they are doing and how to correct mistakes that can't be corrected via prompt. If you are great you are good. If you are average you are !@#$ed.
The shift is happening fast. It won't be measured in years, but weeks and months. By year's end everything will be different. In 24 months entire career paths will be obliterated and there is no time to retrain. It's a cotton gin moment.
The shift is happening fast. It won't be measured in years, but weeks and months. By year's end everything will be different. In 24 months entire career paths will be obliterated and there is no time to retrain. It's a cotton gin moment.
While I agree great engineers will continue to grow in scarcity and demand higher and higher compensation, the shift to armies of prompt specialists is not just an overstatement. It's wrong.
Why?
The same was said again and again again about the offshoring programmers. Reality? Here we are with countless unfilled jobs hiring for senior enginners in NYC for over 200k per year.
The gap, at least cultural, between a coder in Bengalore and San Francisco is significant. Imagine compared to an outsourced "consultant" behind a prompt .
Plus, coding is about 10% of the work. If that. What matters in the end is the thinking, design and solutioning.
Putting a WordPress standard looking and doing template together? Sure gpt4 would do and help udemy self taught "programmer" do it just fine. Innovation and building fit for purpose systems? Humans. Even with quantum computers and 7 trillion parameters models, still humans.
Why?
The same was said again and again again about the offshoring programmers. Reality? Here we are with countless unfilled jobs hiring for senior enginners in NYC for over 200k per year.
The gap, at least cultural, between a coder in Bengalore and San Francisco is significant. Imagine compared to an outsourced "consultant" behind a prompt .
Plus, coding is about 10% of the work. If that. What matters in the end is the thinking, design and solutioning.
Putting a WordPress standard looking and doing template together? Sure gpt4 would do and help udemy self taught "programmer" do it just fine. Innovation and building fit for purpose systems? Humans. Even with quantum computers and 7 trillion parameters models, still humans.
It might be necessary to hire more junior engineers to produce enough senior ones.
Wasn't trying to explain where are senior coming from. But that if after 20 years of attempt to offshore tech like we did textile, here we are still looking for upper level qualified enginners in the most expensive cities in the world, it means announcing the offshoring of the industry , all along , was fallacy. Wishful thinking for some.
Here we are at it again. AI will shift all these workers off payroll . Compress salaries. They are just manipulation, fear mongering to make job seekers give in and accept those underpaid vacant jobs.
Where are senior nurtured at? From companies, usually small, and/or those that don't buy the outsourcing/off shoring fallacy, or because it isn't an option for their organization.
The ratio of senior to junior has always been an issue and is independent to the offshoring phenomenon. More new people get into tech, and faster than seniors get formed. So it always seems there are too many junior, not enough senior. It also means there will defacto be far more seniors in the next generation than there are today. Still even less relative to how many we will need though.
Here we are at it again. AI will shift all these workers off payroll . Compress salaries. They are just manipulation, fear mongering to make job seekers give in and accept those underpaid vacant jobs.
Where are senior nurtured at? From companies, usually small, and/or those that don't buy the outsourcing/off shoring fallacy, or because it isn't an option for their organization.
The ratio of senior to junior has always been an issue and is independent to the offshoring phenomenon. More new people get into tech, and faster than seniors get formed. So it always seems there are too many junior, not enough senior. It also means there will defacto be far more seniors in the next generation than there are today. Still even less relative to how many we will need though.
Genuinely reads like a scare-mongering myths. I am doing the basic of the basic atm - adding an API endpoint to call an internal API and get a subset of data and ChatGPT can't even accomplish that. I have been reviewing the usability of AI for at least a year now, and it's still nowhere near even replacing juniors, despite these posts.
It already has replaced many junior and even mid level engineers. People are getting good at refining prompts. That's the new skill.
Do you have people under you? If yes, I gurantee they can be replaced by a script kiddie with some prompt experience. If no, well… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdKqAVpUOwI
Do you have people under you? If yes, I gurantee they can be replaced by a script kiddie with some prompt experience. If no, well… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdKqAVpUOwI
OK, so assuming a script kiddy with LLM can be as efficient as a junior without LLM, junior with LLM is going to be even more efficient. So we are back to where we are, except everyone is more efficient.
I myself don't tend to believe that performance improvement is that dramatic.
I myself don't tend to believe that performance improvement is that dramatic.
Nevermind. The downvoting is wild. This is how you end up in a bubble.
And there is no rule saying these things have to be related. Execs acting like lemmings is as feasible an explanation.
[deleted]
And CEOs are well known for never spitting lies to manipulate the audience to get cheaper labour, right?
That's a very weird market you're describing. Can't the top 10% do "prompt engineering" themselves? What's the point of creating a layer of incompetent human programmers in the middle?
That's the normal market reaction to some kind of automation.
The most competent few can do a lot more, and command a higher salary, while the masses discover they are out of jobs.
After that, people discover that the product is now cheaper, so they may or may not buy more of it, maybe or maybe not increasing the total they spend, and maybe or maybe not creating more jobs for the mass that was displaced earlier.
Anyway, believing that LLM-programming is going to have that impact is just ridiculous.
The most competent few can do a lot more, and command a higher salary, while the masses discover they are out of jobs.
After that, people discover that the product is now cheaper, so they may or may not buy more of it, maybe or maybe not increasing the total they spend, and maybe or maybe not creating more jobs for the mass that was displaced earlier.
Anyway, believing that LLM-programming is going to have that impact is just ridiculous.
People have been saying this for decades about tech specifically, and for hundreds of years about every major technological innovation.
Yes, and it happens and destroys entire cities, many which never recover.
> The shift is happening fast. It won't be measured in years, but weeks and months. By year's end everything will be different.
What are some real world examples of this that you have personally witnessed that makes you think this is happening so fast?
What are some real world examples of this that you have personally witnessed that makes you think this is happening so fast?
Yep - Offshoring to india replace me in 2002 and I've been out of work since /s
oh - and AI replaced me in late 1980s just like Doctor Dobbs predicted /s
basically, every 10 years _someone_ is claiming programmers will be obsolete - and its been that way for 40 years. But usually that just means the market cools for a year or two, then comes roaring back...
oh - and AI replaced me in late 1980s just like Doctor Dobbs predicted /s
basically, every 10 years _someone_ is claiming programmers will be obsolete - and its been that way for 40 years. But usually that just means the market cools for a year or two, then comes roaring back...
We’ve been telling people for years that a STEM degree is a free ticket to the middle class and studying humanities is a total dead-end. It wouldn’t be that surprising for there to be too many programmers (in some sense; if you ask management there will never be enough as long as we have any negotiating leverage). This is a broader problem than the recent COVID-induced troubles.
We've been telling people for years that a STEM degree is a fast track to a six figure income. And that's been mostly true. But now people are going to find out that a STEM degree is going to place them firmly in the real middle class, not the, "I make $240k a year and live in the Bay Area I'm middle class just like you" middle class.
Possible we might see some real class solidarity if those being displaced can get over themselves.
Possible we might see some real class solidarity if those being displaced can get over themselves.
An STEM degree was a fast track to a desk job that might have allowed for “middle class” living, whatever that means.
But electrician/plumber/nursing/other physically demanding jobs have always been the other, and more resilient, option. But they’re not desk jobs.
But electrician/plumber/nursing/other physically demanding jobs have always been the other, and more resilient, option. But they’re not desk jobs.
I should have not used the term middle-class because it invites definition based arguments.
I meant the Marxist petit-bourgeoisie, which is one of the (multiple, sometimes incompatible) definitions of the middle class. If by middle class you just mean people who have around median income or so, I’d quibble about whether that is any more “real,” but who cares? It is just a definition.
Anyway, I think people generally expect something like that petit-bourgeoisie status from their engineering degrees. It is the expectation that our skills will be in demand enough that we can tell management to get bent if they ask us to do something unethical or dangerous; this is a dramatically different position in the labor market, but it requires rare and in demand skills.
I meant the Marxist petit-bourgeoisie, which is one of the (multiple, sometimes incompatible) definitions of the middle class. If by middle class you just mean people who have around median income or so, I’d quibble about whether that is any more “real,” but who cares? It is just a definition.
Anyway, I think people generally expect something like that petit-bourgeoisie status from their engineering degrees. It is the expectation that our skills will be in demand enough that we can tell management to get bent if they ask us to do something unethical or dangerous; this is a dramatically different position in the labor market, but it requires rare and in demand skills.
Creative destruction is all fun and games when it’s someone else who’s being disrupted. I guess that’s the free hand of the market directing you to another industry.
[deleted]
Sorry to be critical but if you are in tech and have been unemployed for years (especially if those overlap with covid) then you are most certainly doing something wrong and need some guidance. Even now the situation is bad, but not that bad that it should take you more than a couple of months to land some kind of tech job that can pay the bills.
jstarfish(3)
I think we all need to thank China. They basically made recessions a thing of the past by just making them illegal. I doubt one ever happens again considering how easily the government responded to this one. They have a technocratic view of the economy and it’s the correct one.
IMF economic forecasts are of little value, as everyone should have learned from 2008. Let's see what the IMF forecast in 2007...
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sores1...
forecast: "World growth to slow in 2008, but still expected to remain solid at 4¾ percent "
reality (Fed report 2013): "From peak to trough, US gross domestic product fell by 4.3 percent, making this the deepest recession since World War II."
If climate scientists made forecasts that were this ridiculously off base in the wrong direction, the whole field would be laughed out of the room. How is it that the neoclassical econometric modelers at the IMF aren't? It's more like astrology than science.
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sores1...
forecast: "World growth to slow in 2008, but still expected to remain solid at 4¾ percent "
reality (Fed report 2013): "From peak to trough, US gross domestic product fell by 4.3 percent, making this the deepest recession since World War II."
If climate scientists made forecasts that were this ridiculously off base in the wrong direction, the whole field would be laughed out of the room. How is it that the neoclassical econometric modelers at the IMF aren't? It's more like astrology than science.
It's complicated because the forecasts of the system themselves can have some effect on the system they're forecasting.
Because of people chasing alpha in the markets, any forecast with too much predictive power will tend to alter the system in ways that reduce its predictive power
Because of people chasing alpha in the markets, any forecast with too much predictive power will tend to alter the system in ways that reduce its predictive power
It's like if predicting the weather could hurt the weather's feelings.
That's the difference between an open loop and a closed loop.
This legit got a laugh out of me. I'll be cursing at the clouds the next time it rains!
Do you think these forecasts would have been accurate if they had been kept secret?
So do the forecasts of climate scientists, and in many other fields, this not an excuse.
That is just not even close to a fair analogy.
You are right; climate scientists have it worse. Economists do not have an established cabal of special interests working to undermine them at every turn. An entire political party opposed to anything they say.
Public reception is a top concern for climate scientists.
Public reception is a top concern for climate scientists.
Are you comparing their projection for the World GDP change in one year vs reality of one country over some extended period? I don't think your argument as strong as you believe.
World GDP Change in
2008 +2.1%
2009 -1.4%
2010 +4.5%
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2...
World GDP Change in
2008 +2.1%
2009 -1.4%
2010 +4.5%
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2...
The IMF is as much a political organization as it is a financial one. With a HQ in Washington, DC they're certain to drink the same water as all the other political BS artists. They're also not going to toss the World Bank, the Central Banks, etc. under the bus.
The point is, there's a difference between proper forecasts and (what amounts to) propaganda.
The point is, there's a difference between proper forecasts and (what amounts to) propaganda.
Their job is to convince everyone that everything is OK, and we should all keep going to work, spending money and investing.
If even a small percentage of people stopped doing those things, it would all fall apart.
If even a small percentage of people stopped doing those things, it would all fall apart.
As long as the chairperson of the Federal Reserve doesn't say that the economy is fundamentaly sound[1], I think we'll be OK.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2007/03/01/fed-chief-economy-...
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2007/03/01/fed-chief-economy-...
> If climate scientists made forecasts that were this ridiculously off base in the wrong direction, the whole field would be laughed out of the room. How is it that the neoclassical econometric modelers at the IMF aren't? It's more like astrology than science.
I have to say, this made me chuckle. Climate scientists have gone from warning us that we're entering an ice age, to warning us that the globe is warming too much. They've consistently gotten their forecasts wrong concerning rising sea levels, and their forecasts concerning when the world would end. It's pure alarmism, extremism, and is the cause for the increasing eco-terrorism we are seeing.
Anyone that would like a little more info can watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Yms_-vgbU
I have to say, this made me chuckle. Climate scientists have gone from warning us that we're entering an ice age, to warning us that the globe is warming too much. They've consistently gotten their forecasts wrong concerning rising sea levels, and their forecasts concerning when the world would end. It's pure alarmism, extremism, and is the cause for the increasing eco-terrorism we are seeing.
Anyone that would like a little more info can watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Yms_-vgbU
The ice age thing was never a majority opinion among scientists.
Scientists, quite literally, change their theories as more information becomes apparent. Frankly, you're better suited to blame mass media for the alarmism and extremism. "The global temperature increased 1ºC in the past 100 years" is a lot less likely to get those sweet, sweet ad revenue clicks than a headline like "Scientists say the Earth will be uninhabitable in 100 years".
Also, a philosopher cosplaying as a climate scientist may not be the best source for climate information. Until he starts having his statements and information peer-reviewed, it's nothing more than the philosophical musings of a man who, he himself, believes that the pinnacle of life is to feed the machine and consume, consume, consume.
Also, a philosopher cosplaying as a climate scientist may not be the best source for climate information. Until he starts having his statements and information peer-reviewed, it's nothing more than the philosophical musings of a man who, he himself, believes that the pinnacle of life is to feed the machine and consume, consume, consume.
That's nonsense - you're conflating the discovery of the main drivers behind the ice age cycles that began at the end of the Pliocene (~100,000 years per cycle over ~2 million years) with the discovery of the effects of human fossil fuel combustion.
Yes, we're past the historical warm maximum period of this cycle and we'd be steadily (and very slowly) heading into another ice age over the next 70,000 years or so - but again, fossil fuel combustion and the injection of mass amounts of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere have radically altered that trajectory. This is not hard to understand, unless you're deliberately trying not to.
Yes, we're past the historical warm maximum period of this cycle and we'd be steadily (and very slowly) heading into another ice age over the next 70,000 years or so - but again, fossil fuel combustion and the injection of mass amounts of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere have radically altered that trajectory. This is not hard to understand, unless you're deliberately trying not to.
[deleted]