https://www.zdnet.com/article/rumor...rs-ai-induced-demise-are-greatly-exaggerated/

The case against an imminent software developer apocalypse
Since the advent of ChatGPT, the software developer population has grown between 18% and 50%, depending on the measure.

 

​

 

That is a very interesting heading for a segment: " an imminent software developer apocalypse ", except that just what it means is totally unclear.
Is the it proposition that for whatever reason, the demand for software developers will cease?? Or does it claim that the demand will suddenly shrink?? Certainly not everybody is able to be a software developer, (whatever that is), nor is everybody capable of stocking shelves in a store. Or even sweeping the floors correctly.
What does happen is that if a given field is touted loudly enough, some number of folks will ettempt to join that field and reap the claimed benefits of wealth and respect. That is reasonable.
But wishing something to be true, and wanting it to be true, no matter how sincerely, normally do not cause some claim to be true.
This reality is totally the opposite of what Mister (initials deleted), has demonstrated the he firmly believed. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, that organization no longer exists. THAT, my friends, was a VERY SAD result.

 

This thread seems most appropriate:

'It's Only a Matter of National Security': America's Workforce Academy's Mission to Fill the Workforce Gap

 

This thread seems most appropriate:

'It's Only a Matter of National Security': America's Workforce Academy's Mission to Fill the Workforce Gap

An interesting cultural research project would be to really explore the factors that led to the decline in the trades. When I was in junior high high school nearly fifty years ago, the trades were very prominent. Not only did most junior high and high schools have their own "industrial arts" classes, but the district had the Career Enrichment Park, CEP, where students could focus their trades education and be ready to jump into the workforce running. It was extremely diverse, ranging from auto mechanics and auto body repair to cabinet making, welding, plumbing, electrical, cosmetology, healthcare, and hospitality. They had a restaurant that combined several programs including a culinary program and a management program. People in the welding program could be certified welders prior to graduation and the cosmetology program was generally regarded as the hardest program because it required that all requirements for high school graduation be completed by the end of the junior year (high school was a three-year program at that time) since the senior year was a full-time, paid, work experience. These were full-up programs that you had to apply to and be accepted into -- you couldn't just take them piecemeal because you were interested in it (that's what the industrial arts programs at the home schools were for). What's more, students enrolled in programs at the CEP were not in any way looked down upon by anyone (I'm sure exceptions existed, they always do).

When I went back a decade or so after graduation, the CEP was gone and the industrial arts programs had been reduced significantly. The emphasis was all on college prep and the attitude was that offering students the opportunity to choose the trades was a disservice because college was the way to a bright future. I don't know if this attitude arose as a consequence of the trades becoming thought of as "second class", or if that was a consequence of the schools taking that approach -- I imagine it was a self-reenforcing cycle. But it would be interesting to really delve into the factors and influences that started the trend and then drove it.

 

The emphasis was all on college prep and the attitude was that offering students the opportunity to choose the trades was a disservice because college was the way to a bright future.

I think you answered your own question. That, and the various loan, grant, and subsidy programs proliferated by governments and private entities made that "bright future" more accessible to everyone (whether or not they have the aptitude or desire for an advanced degree).

Remember: if you want more of something, subsidize it.

Adam Smith's invisible hand will balance this all out, eventually.

The trades will have to pay more for scarce tradesmen, raising the income potential.

When kids eventually realize they can earn more money with higher security at less cost via a plumbing cert at a vo-tech, than by spending 4+ years at a liberal arts college while assuming a huge debt and no job outlook, things will turn around.

 

One problem remains, how can the trade industry make plumbing look more glamorous? ... Somehow the previous generation lost respect for that way of making a living, and now it's finally being regained, I think.

 

...how can the trade industry make plumbing look more glamorous?

Make sole-proprietorship sexy again.

Edit: it's gotten too damn hard (and expensive and time consuming) to start a small business. If I were starting over today, I might not do it.

 

I think you answered your own question. That, and the various loan, grant, and subsidy programs proliferated by governments and private entities made that "bright future" more accessible to everyone (whether or not they have the aptitude or desire for an advanced degree).

In part, yes. But I don't know to what degree this was the initial impetus for the shift, versus it being an aspect that arose as a consequence of the shift once it started. I suspect that there were broader, and more subtle, cultural factors at play. But, once it got going, there was no shortage of people that jumped on board and pushed.

 

But I don't know to what degree this was the initial impetus for the shift...

How about the G.I. Bill?

 

How about the G.I. Bill?

Which G.I. Bill? There have been many (and I was unfortunate to serve under the worst of them, called VEAP -- had I had a reporting date just three weeks later I would have been under the far better, though still far inferior to what is available today, Montgomery G.I. Bill).

The original G.I. Bill didn't seem to detract too much from the trades or the perception of the trades. After all, that perception was still pretty healthy forty years later.

The current G.I. Bill is extremely generous and that has really opened the door for lots of diploma mills, most of them pretending to be four-year colleges, but more than a fair number of so-called trade schools fall into that category.

I suspect that part of the initial impetus can be traced back to Vietnam. Going to college was a way to avoid the draft, but being in a trade school, with rare exceptions, did not qualify for an deferment. That seems to align much better with the timeline of when the broader perception of "college" is the preferred route over the "trades" seemed to begin, though it took another decade or so to really build steam (which is pretty common in cultural shifts).

 

Which G.I. Bill? There have been many (and I was unfortunate to serve under the worst of them, called VEAP -- had I had a reporting date just three weeks later I would have been under the far better, though still far inferior to what is available today, Montgomery G.I. Bill).

The original G.I. Bill didn't seem to detract too much from the trades or the perception of the trades. After all, that perception was still pretty healthy forty years later.

The current G.I. Bill is extremely generous and that has really opened the door for lots of diploma mills, most of them pretending to be four-year colleges, but more than a fair number of so-called trade schools fall into that category.

I suspect that part of the initial impetus can be traced back to Vietnam. Going to college was a way to avoid the draft, but being in a trade school, with rare exceptions, did not qualify for an deferment. That seems to align much better with the timeline of when the broader perception of "college" is the preferred route over the "trades" seemed to begin, though it took another decade or so to really build steam (which is pretty common in cultural shifts).

I was told -- at 4 years old -- by my soon-to-be dead-beat-dad who was a car salesman at the time, that I had two options in life: play football, or join the army.

I assume by those choices he meant (though he didn't elaborate) that those were the only ways I was getting into college.

So, even at that time, at least in my personal experience, the trades were not regarded highly.

 

I was told -- at 4 years old -- by my soon-to-be dead-beat-dad who was a car salesman at the time, that I had two options in life: play football, or join the army.

I assume by those choices he meant (though he didn't elaborate) that those were the only ways I was getting into college.

So, even at that time, at least in my personal experience, the trades were not regarded highly.

I don't know how much can actually be garnered from that. Even if that's what he meant, it's hard to know how representative it was. It's also very datable how true it was (that that was the only way to get into college, even as a loose generalization). Historically, the cost of college was about 4% of the median family income and students could pay for it pretty readily by working part-time or working overtime during the summer. When I started at the Colorado School of Mines in 1983, full-time tuition was $806/semester and the fees where very modest. At the time, minimum wage was just $3.35/hr, so someone could pay for their annual tuition with about 10 hrs/wk of work at a minimum wage job (that's 10 hrs/wk above and beyond what they needed to cover their normal living expenses, of course). Room and board in the dorms was pretty much the same as tuition, though you could save a lot on that by living off campus and sharing rent. Graduating with significant student loan debt was pretty uncommon. The rapid rise of college costs didn't get underway until the mid-1980s, and I do think that that was greatly fueled by the government dumping money into higher education without any kind of thought behind the inflationary pressures it would create. I think the nose-in-the-tent can largely be traced to the Higher Education Act of 1965 (part of the Great Society program which had a huge number of long-lasting negative unintended consequences, as well as some beneficial changes). By making student loans easier to get, subsidizing interest and deferring payments, and marketing them heavily, students began turning to them as a primary means of paying for college. But this divorced them from being sensitive to college costs, allowing schools to start hiking rates knowing that students would largely just sign on the dotted line for higher loan amounts with little thought. At the same time, states started withdrawing their support because students were more able to cover the costs via borrowing. This didn't happen overnight, of course. Like most things, it took a decade for loans to start becoming mainstream and another decade for the continual increase in government expansion of loan programs to really hit its stride.

 

How about the G.I. Bill?

I went to school under the old Vietnam era GI bill. They paid for trades plus degree programs and were pretty lax about it. Most of us did short trade schools in addition to college credit courses to keep the money going.