What if once the 100k dev jobs are gone the equivalent value in terms of AI is nowhere near that. Say it is 5k instead?

Due to oversupply. First you needed humans who can code. But now you need scalable compute.

Equivalent would be hiring those people to wave a flag infront of a car. They are replaced bt modern cars, but you dont get to receive the flag wavers wage as captured value for long if at all.

lets call that stage 2 when the labor/ai spend drops below 1.0, to understand what that might look like i would compare to surgeon model. so like $500k for a Surgeon to manage outcomes with 10x AI leverage. Arguments for: managers are compensated proportional to the capital risk they are responsible for so it makes sense that as the leverage increases the comp increases, even if the ratio drops before it u-turns and climbs. Four arguments against: 1) the economy is going to look very different with different dynamic equilibrium in surprising places; 2) this assumes software best practices remain as they are today with no disruptive breakthroughs which is unlikely, 3) systems that promote inequality are vulnerable to constant attack so it may not be a stable equilibrium 4) it may not even work - code complexity scales faster than linearly with lines of code, where is the break even point and is it higher or lower on the complexity curve than the breakeven point today?