ETA: summary…

Author describes how agentic coding tools have disincentivized the developer training and mentorship pipeline that the software industry has implicitly relied on to produce seasoned developers, predicting that once the shortage is fully realized it could take years to reverse.

The solution proposed is for managers and senior developers to get ahead of this shortage by foregoing the immediate yet shortlived productivity maximization offered by the agent-multiplied-senior structure in favor of longterm sustainability by deliberately facilitating experience fan-out to juniors.

The methodology proposed is based on a successful nuclear engineering apprenticeship program carried out on active service naval submarines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Great hypothetical that doesn’t translate to the real world, so I’m not sure why I should consider it.

Its not supposed to be a real world example. Its an exaggerated hypothetical to prove a point. You should consider it because its an exercise in isolating one specific element to measure your own response to just that element without distraction of other (possibly relevant) points.

I can make hypotheticals too. What if the dickish employer leads to burn out 80% of the time that most people take years to recover from. Would you take the chance?

If you're extending my hypothetical, hell yes I would! I would work 2 years earn enough money to never have to work again. The future "years of recovery" would be doing whatever I wanted.

I think you may be making the assumption that if you didn't take the dickish employer position, that you'd be guaranteed 20 years of non-dickish employer employment. If you've been watching the job market over the last 10 years, I think you should know that isn't likely.

The result of staying with non-dickish employer is that you may be 6-8 years tops at non-dickish employer getting simple cost-of-living raises, but never advancing beyond your position, and possibly not allowing you to save enough for retirement at the lifestyle you want to live. Then some year in the future your non-dickish employer gets bought out by private equity or put out of business by a competitor multinational company. So then you're back in the job market with a very high likelihood of only having dickish employers to choose from for future employment for the next 8-12 years.

Meanwhile, your former co-worker worked for dickish employer for 2 years, cashed out, and travels the world with his wife studying history while his wife paints because thats what they like to do with their time.

What if 2 year is guaranteed to give you a lifelong trauma. Would you take the chance?

Depends on the definition of trauma in your specific hypothetical. I'd argue all employers cause some level and type of trauma. So it would be a discussion of degrees and how it manifests.

Or hey, what if working at that employer means you have to do things like write code that kills humans and they are then used in your country? What if earning 10x means your kids will never know privacy again and you contributed to it. Worth the 10x?

That doesn't meet my definition of dickish employer. What you're describing here is far worse. You're proving my point with my original hypothetical that was isolating just pay.

I've answered your hypothetical would you like to answer mine now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    My hypotheticals got you to think about more than just money, which is my point: there's more to a job than money. If I could get a wage to live a minimally comfortable life with the occasional semestral luxury and the job were a dream, you couldn't pay me enough to work at any shitty employer.

    With that out of the way, since your hypothetical is purely about money and nothing else, no job satisfaction, no evil deeds of the employer, no questionable ethics, no seeing the kids for 1-2 years, no functional relationship for the same amount of time, no work life balance, no travel distance, no in office mandate, no sense of belonging with my current employer, nothing but money and I somehow fell on my head to ignore all of that... sure, I'd be a selfish capitalist pig and switch jobs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    My hypotheticals got you to think about more than just money,

    Sigh, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I had already thought though all of those before.

    which is my point: there’s more to a job than money.

    I'm perfectly aware of that. You're getting close to my ultimate point, which ultimately is: There's more to life than a job

    If I could get a wage to live a minimally comfortable life with the occasional semestral luxury and the job were a dream, you couldn’t pay me enough to work at any shitty employer.

    Sure, but those jobs/employers are increasingly rare, and when the need exist to find a replacement like that it is even more rare. Unless you're within perhaps 5 years of retirement right now, the likelihood you're going to find your described desired job that will last for the rest of your working life looks very unlikely to me. If that's your plan, I wish you luck.

    With that out of the way, since your hypothetical is purely about money and nothing else, no job satisfaction, no evil deeds of the employer, no questionable ethics, no seeing the kids for 1-2 years, no functional relationship for the same amount of time, no work life balance, no travel distance, no in office mandate, no sense of belonging with my current employer, nothing but money and I somehow fell on my head to ignore all of that…sure, I’d be a selfish capitalist pig and switch jobs.

    That isn't what I asked. You're changing the hypothetical I posted, then answered your changed one. With our handful of interactions, I believe I have a good understanding of your thought process and how you approach an issue now. I have heard what you believe and you have heard a part of my argument. Thank you for conversing up to now.

  • source
  • parent