| ▲ | time0ut 7 hours ago |
| Optimistically, I hope it filters out the people who were only interested in it for the money. When I was in school, decades ago now, very few people went into CS compared to other majors. Everyone I knew going into it did it because they loved it. I would have done it regardless of the career opportunities because I want to build stuff. Interviewing candidates over the years since then, my experience has been there are still very few of those passionate nerds and a lot of people who did it for other reasons, like the money or similar. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. I don’t fault people for it. Maybe if we get very lucky, it will go back to a relatively few passionate people building stuff because it is cool? |
|
| ▲ | denkmoon 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Having an industry’s labour supplied only by those inherently passionate about it is a great way to crush wages and working conditions. Look at what companies like Blizzard get away with because their employees just want to make video games at their favourite dev studio. While they’re a pain in the ass sometimes, I welcome the devs who are only here for the cash. |
| |
| ▲ | alex43578 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is totally leaving out the supply and demand aspect. People like the idea of making games more than working on the plumbing of some accounts payable software, so Blizzard can pay less and treat worse than NicheBoringFinanceCo. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Let's consider how this could play out: If you need a lot of low quality code in a hurry, AI can definitely do that for you now. The path to making money by writing mediocre code for people who don't really care that much is going to look like managing a network of bots that constantly spit out a huge volume of code that kind of mostly works and if it sometimes doesn't then whatever. The people in it for the money can probably make a decent amount in the "high volume low quality" space. Then there's the code that needs to actually work, or have some thought put into it. Consider the process of writing IETF RFCs. Can you get an LLM to spit out English text that conforms to their formatting? Absolutely you can. Is the RFC it emits going to be something you'll want to have the whole world trying to implement as a standard? Not likely. So the people doing that are going to be doing it something closer to the old way. | |
| ▲ | Archonical 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The parent comment is describing supply and demand. If Blizzard attracts a larger supply of workers who will accept lower pay and worse conditions because they intrinsically want the job, Blizzard gains leverage. That is exactly why studios like Blizzard can get away with more than “NicheBoringFinanceCo.” | | |
| ▲ | alex43578 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If an “industry’s labour [is] supplied only by those inherently passionate about it” the post says it would “crush wages and working conditions”. That runs completely counter to the basics of supply and demand in a perfect competition market. It would be market with far fewer (labor) suppliers, who could therefore command a higher wage, not lower. | | |
| ▲ | terminalshort 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To use your example of someone working on the plumbing of an accounts payable system, who is passionate about that? The supply is near zero. That, like most jobs, is going to need to be done entirely by people who are just doing it for the money, and there is nothing wrong with that. Your example runs counter to the laws of supply and demand too. You understand that wages will rise when supply is restricted, but you don't want to accept that supply will respond to the price signal in the form of more people entering that job market. | |
| ▲ | dwohnitmok 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You are only looking at supply. Neither supply nor demand by themselves adequately describe prices (even in supply-demand 101 theory; in practice of course it gets significantly more complicated than just supply and demand). There are fields with few suppliers where supply is extremely cheap and fields with few suppliers where supply is extremely expensive. Is the number of suppliers low because demand is also low or is the number of suppliers low because demand is high but supply is constrained? A field that previously had a supply of labor in it "for the money" who all leave is indicative of the former scenario not the latter. That does not lead to higher wages. That leads to low wages. (There are a variety of reasons why this story is too simple and why I remain uncertain about developer salaries in the short term) There is a broader question of whether having people who are in it for the money leave independently "causes" wages to go down (e.g. if you were to replace all such people with people "purely in it for the passion"). My suspicion is yes. Mainly because wage markets are somewhat inefficient, there are always mild cartel-like/cooperative effects in any market, people in it for passion tend to undersell labor and the people in it for the money are much less likely to undersell their labor and this spills over beneficially to the former. Note that this broader question is simply unanswerable assuming perfect competition, i.e. a supply-demand 101 perspective (which is why it doesn't make sense to posit "perfect competition" for this question). It posits durable behavioral differences among suppliers that are not determined purely by supply and demand which do not update reliably in the face of pricing. This is equivalent to market friction and hence fundamentally contradicts an assumption of perfect competition. | |
| ▲ | icehawk 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Except that there are a LOT of people that want to work in video games (which is the supply) which then depresses the price (wages) All of my developer friends in the gaming industry have had far worse working conditions then what I've had. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | deterministic an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are plenty of non-games software companies that are treating devs purely. However almost all of the companies I have worked for in my 30+ years career treated devs well. So if you are in a shitty situation, I highly recommend finding another job instead of just placing yourself over a barrel. | |
| ▲ | sb057 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | See also: public school teachers. You either need to be insanely passionate or incredibly stupid to take ~$55k/year for long hours as an educator that is also a babysitter. And insanely passionate teachers are in short supply. | | |
| ▲ | boringg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I bet a lot of teachers look at what devs do and think that its also insane to sit in front of computer all day, in a no boundary job, working on something you really don't care about and is potentially really bad for civilization only to make money off and lose your sense of self. | | |
| ▲ | notesinthefield 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | My spouse has expressed this nearly verbatim after transitioning out of a 16 year career in middle and grade school education to medical curriculum development. It was hell on her mental health but at least there was a clear motivation and purpose for being there. |
| |
| ▲ | alex43578 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Long hours? Teachers work the same hours or less than other adults per “New Measures of Teachers’ Work Hours and Implications for Wage Comparisons” by West. “Teachers work an average of 34.5 hours per week on an annual basis (38.0 hours per week during the school year and 21.5 hours per week during the summer months).” That’s leaving out the benefits of incredibly strong union protections, it being a state job with matched benefits, absurd job security even in the face of terrible performance, etc. | | |
| ▲ | tdeck 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | There's no way these numbers can be correct. My school was 8 am to 3 PM, that's 35 hours a week right there for full time teachers. But teachers spend many more hours outside the class preparing lessons, grading work, and following up on things. If you even spend a week teaching something you quickly realize how much extra prep work goes into it. | |
| ▲ | mylifeandtimes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wait-- I think you are confusing "teachers" with "police officers". | |
| ▲ | nullstyle 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | “ benefits of incredibly strong union protections” Lol, try saying that to an alaskan teachers face and watch yourself get slapped for the absurdity of the claim. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | ddorian43 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Where are the gamedevs in it for the money? | | | |
| ▲ | sunir 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you have the law of supply and demand backwards. |
|
|
| ▲ | Thanemate 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Optimistically, I hope it filters out the people who were only interested in it for the money. I hope not, because we don't need software developers to be "starving artist 2.0". And on that note: I vividly remember people staying away from the video game development industry because it was deemed "passion industry", and that had a really negative connotation of long working hours for asymmetrical return, and more. I don't look forward for every other software engineering branch to become like that. |
| |
| ▲ | hyperadvanced 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Seems… improbable. There will certainly be less of us, but the fact remains that nobody wants to debug this shite vibecoded apps companies are pushing, and some simply are not able because of skill atrophy and perverse incentives to use AI at the cost of stability. |
|
|
| ▲ | Hasslequest 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Brother, we need to eat. You don't need to go to college to learn about some topic, you can pirate textbooks. You need to go to college to get a piece of paper saying you did. If you were passionate about computer programming, you can do it in your free time while you flip burgers or do whatever you need to survive |
| |
| ▲ | viccis an hour ago | parent [-] | | >You need to go to college to get a piece of paper saying you did. If you were passionate about computer programming, you can do it in your free time while you flip burgers or do whatever you need to survive This is a naive view of the average (or even above average) person's approach to learning, as well as an overly cynical read on the intellectually motivating atmosphere that comes from earnestly engaging in an academic environment. |
|
|
| ▲ | drivebyhooting 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I only went into SWE for the money. I initially pursued my real passion which was math and physics and got a cold water bucket to the face only after grad school. |
|
| ▲ | array_key_first 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Maybe if we get very lucky, it will go back to a relatively few passionate people building stuff because it is cool? I think we basically lost this when software/computer/internet entered the mainstream. Now, like everything else, it has to be bland, unoffensive, and a commodity. |
|
| ▲ | underlipton 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I'm not saying that this is an incorrect read, but I think it's important to consider that young people might be responding to the general desperation of a tight labor market across the last generation. It used to be that you could get a degree - any degree - and that would be enough to get you in the conversation for a position somewhere. Today, a degree isn't any sort of guarantee of any sort of job - in your field, entry level, dead-end retail, anything. Tuition skyrocketed and only a few fields kept pace. So, you get the degree in the field that's a "winner." Of course, this just increases competition, robs other fields of needed competency, etc. Prisoner's dilemma? |