The financial and business press always invents causes to try to explain current events. Like you'll see an article that states "stocks fell today due to profit taking". In reality journalists have no clue why it happened and just make up something that sounds plausible or at least isn't objectively false.
I'm glad someone else recognizes the farce that is the implied cause-effect analysis of economic trends. "Stocks tumble as mywittyname avoids lunch time taco truck for fourth week in a row. Taco tariffs feared."
The accurate, but boring headline is almost always, "stock (tumble|gain) as algorithmic traders reinforce trend. Further news may occur."
Remember that a journalist is someone who sells your attention to advertisers, not someone who sells you an accurate picture of world events. It's far better for them to be wrong about something chaotic and unverifiable like the cause of a short term unemployment spike than to admit that they don't know. Sometimes it's better for them not to know the cause of something when it's mundane and they can bait you with the mystery, like the NJ drones that we all obsessed over for a month that turned out to be part of an R&D agreement that was a matter of public record and could have shot the whole story down on day one if it had been reported.
They use wording -- just like this article does -- like "X happens as Y also happens".
The keyword being "as" and not "because" or "due to".
It implies causality, by coupling both in the same title, without technically linking the two.
E.g. "Stocks fall as rate increase looms"
They're basically just saying two things happened at the same time, or one after the other, but one didn't necessarily cause the other.
IOW, they know they can't link the two -- i.e. they can't user words like "because" or "due to" -- but they also know that by coupling them in the same headline, readers will still infer causality.
This probably depends on how you define "IT". I think for employment type stats the list of categories is fairly wide, and can include almost anything that requires a computer that doesn't fit into other categories (which btw is often used for 'exempt' overtime status to put people in on-call rotations without resulting in an 'engaged to wait' scenario that requires payment for time not spent on a call. because they're "experts in IT related field").
But specifically this is probably mostly driven so far by tech support industries. "IT" being customer service reps who use a computer to respond to chat messages, in some cases.
Or actual tech support that's had its entire entry system stripped and replaced by an AI-guided walkthrough of predefined steps customers are required to take before they talk to a human. This will certainly have impact on the amount of support staff needed, even if a portion of that is simply frustrating customers into searching for answers themselves.
> Or actual tech support that's had its entire entry system stripped and replaced by an AI-guided walkthrough of predefined steps customers are required to take before they talk to a human.
How much tech support was still in the US though? Outside of small onshore teams, frontline tech support for the major players was already all in India/SEA. You could replace those people with AI, yes, but it wouldn't reflect in US unemployment stats.
According to the article, the overall unemployment rate is 4%. So something is happening with IT jobs, not the economy. I call it bullshit that it's the AI, it's the outsourcing/remote jobs
Companies overhired during the pandemic. Big companies hired people to deny their competitors employees.
Also as you flatten organizations and use cloud services you can discard lots of people. Every large company had a storage team. I worked for a big company that probably had 250 FTEs just running storage. Not anymore.
There’s also a ton of uncertainty in the US. Everyone is banking on a significant correction.
I think it could be related. We purchased AI tools - with the new expectation - baked into weekly sprint deadlines that we will get 30% more work done.
You would need to wait for several quarters' worth of labor market data and a thorough empirical analysis to see whether the hypothesis held up. 2-3 years would need to pass just to collect enough data.
"Another reason for January’s tech job losses was that companies began implementing some intended spending cuts for this year, Janulaitis said, and many slashed budgets based on what the economy looked like during fiscal planning last year."
Exactly. Seems more likely that it's driven but much higher interest rates than AI. AI is likely just how these businesses are trying to justify why/how they've laid off more workers instead of asking the remaining people to do a lot more work for the same pay.
they think it is 'due to AI' because it helps push tech stocks; not due to any facts. I also recommend looking at this article's source (https://e-janco.com/career/employmentdata.html?srsltid=AfmBO...), apparently the Janco guys think its going to be be a better year for tech than last year. Trash journalism....
We don't. Economics is complex and it is extremely common for journalists to simply take something and run with it. Even just saying "unemployment" needs scrutiny, as there are multiple ways to measure "unemployment."
> How do we know that the rise in unemployment is being driven by AI specifically, and not by wider economic circumstances?.
There are several important things to look at that show this. First and foremost, IT has about a 40 year history now, with corresponding economic data.
In its entire history, its been uncorrelated with interest rates and other assets. These correlated assets are what most people refer to when they speak of wider economic circumstance. The IT industry is uncorrelated with this, with 40 years to back that up.
IT labor markets are however strongly correlated with advances in information technology. This correlation is found throughout that dataset as well, in both the boom and bust cycles.
The deep unemployment which we are seeing here, which doesn't include the first batch of laid off employees two years ago [18 mo], is only correlated and impacted by Information Technology advances.
There is only one such major advance that has been made in this time period... Artificial Intelligence.
AI has improved dramatically from a modular swappable design, and it can replace entry level positional tasks completely. It probably won't ever be able to take over the senior level positions, or the mid level positions, but that doesn't matter.
The companies involved in integrating these things into the production environment have mislead most of their customers, and in the process burnt all the bridges. Many of these companies market towards replacing workers with AI, grossly negligent of the whipsaw they are creating with that misleading narrative. In the short term they make lots of profit, while destroying the environment they need to sustain themselves.
By choking off the professional development pipeline which is a sequential pipeline in developing talent, this leaves few opportunities to progress to mid and senior level positions, which were few and far between to begin with.
When there is no economic incentive to go into any specialized field because AI has burnt the only bridge for a long-term career, people don't go into these jobs. Worse, those caught surprised by this change in circumstance, who actually have sufficient experience to perform at these mid-level ranges, may abandon the profession causing exponential brain drain. As anyone knows, people age and eventually die. Senior level people are at greater risk to this than others.
This inevitably creates a tsunami of cost in those irreplaceable positions which cannot be addressed by the market, and balloons far above what the market can bare. The forward looking expectations have made any labor in this industry worth less than AI services, and IT as a general rule is a labor multiplier where changes here eventually expand and infect everywhere.
Business is not constrained in hiring people because many business receive operations funding upfront from their financial engineering which often comes from money printers. By the time they notice the problem, it will be too late to solve it, in many respects its already too late because you have people who are incredibly competent, near geniuses, and they see no future in the industry and are retraining ahead of the curve.
AI threatens society because it disrupts the core pillars of society, which is indirect but immeasurably important to sustained organization of labor and food production. Agriculture is dependent on something like 64 different intermediate producers to maintain production levels sufficient to feed people.
Failures back to pre-modern industrial technology would mean half the people alive today starve to death, no matter how much they work.
These are the issues which the article doesn't really touch on correctly but its WSJ so what do you expect. Their journalism has never really been up to snuff.
I can confirm this. Former Senior Manager from Big Tech Co here (I just resigned 2 weeks ago). When I left, we were in the middle of offshoring all of my groups to Amsterdam. No stock compensation in Europe = cheaper devs. There was no real talk of replacing anyone with AI. We all used copilot and the other LLMs as tools, but you still needed devs who understood the systems and how to debug the generated code.
In Cybersecurity and DevTooling we've moved the entire Engineering and Product function to Israel, India, and Eastern Europe (Czechia, Poland, Romania).
We'll still fund founders in the US, but they still end up hiring in those countries instead because you can pay "Austin in 2010" salaries and get top tier talent.
20 years ago, P/L responsibility would remain in the US, but in the current iteration, even P/L stakeholders are now abroad.
This is true but it had not exploded at rates like this until 2022ish. Since 2000 the fed interest rate was effectively 0 until now. This is causing companies to cut every corner they can, which is causing no employment here, and 100% employment abroad.
The difference is that they no longer are "outsourced" sweatshops. They are just entire divisions/departments of companies with full reporting chains. Effectively interchangeable with a US remote WFH employee/department.
I've been employing eastern European IT folks since the early 00's as I've founded/worked for remote only companies since the late 90's. We were ahead of the game here, and anyone we hired was not treated like a sweatshop worker. They were hired and promoted like any hire we made in the US and were simply called an employee. The talent level was same or better than the US talent level for 1/10th of the cost, especially at the mid-tier/career level.
The largest issue was timezones, but if you needed to staff a 24x7 highly skilled ops team - this was one effective way to get a great head start doing so. Plus it was relatively easy getting folks to work odd hours if you were paying double local salaries.
Since the pandemic things have entirely shifted. It used to be large companies/enterprises would offshore to sweatshop style outsourcing companies. They had a hard time competing with us since the work and responsibility simply did not attract the best candidates. We could hire directly out of local university pipelines and be extremely picky in only taking the top 1% of candidates due to this. After the pandemic this totally changed to these large companies now competing on salary at levels we no longer found competitive. We simply no longer enjoy the strategic advantage of having an untapped low-cost highly skilled labor pool in these areas any longer. Large companies have more or less adopted our model.
It's now not uncommon to have entire teams headed up by a highly competent senior VP or C level local leader who reports directly to US upper level management. They are included in all business decisions as anyone in the US would be at their level, and performance is similar to any US team.
I have always (and even written a few times on HN about the subject) thought highly compensated US engineers were being exceedingly short-sighted in their demands for WFO since this was always going to be the outcome in the end. Once you can hire someone in the midwest US, it's not really a huge leap to realizing you can do the same 2500 miles away in a low cost country. There are still tons of labor arbitrage opportunities left in the world and the story that there is no local technical talent in these places is utterly false. It's always been a management problem.
Over time it will even out - and it has quite a bit. Salaries are now maybe 1/3 to 1/2 US salaries at the same talent level, so it still has a long way to go in my opinion. You are only seeing the start of many companies building up long-term strategic plans in these regions - these things take years to decades to be fully realized.
Most US WFH engineers will be competing on salary/skillsets in a world market within their lifetimes regardless of cost of living differences. The writing is on the wall, and I personally believe the die has been cast at this point.
> They are replacing US jobs with jobs in Poland. I experienced this first hand.
Like, only now?! This had been the case my entire career to the point I got fed up of rat race to the delight of foreign superior, became cynical and unemployable. It's not ey-ay, nor outsourcing, it's the economay. We have a crisis, sir.
This was totally predictable. If your job can be shipped to Kansas from SV because it is cheaper, it won't be too long before it is shipped to Canada which cheaper than Kansas and then to Colombia.
But HN is still embracing remote work. I hope those in the US/Western Europe wake up soon otherwise all the coding jobs will go the way of manufacturing jobs very soon - either done by robots or done by cheaper labor in Asia or Africa or LatAm.
I haven’t experienced it, yet, but for my company it might be one of two ways it becomes profitable. The other way is to lay everyone off AND offshore work only when the lone remainer needs help.
If Putin gets what he really wants that is going to work out as great as it did for all the companies outsourcing to Ukraine.
Putin is covertly manipulating Poland with the same games as he did with Ukraine. And now it appears increasingly likely he has the right guy in the white house to take what he wants.
Some big companies already moved when war started. I know one major bank moved cca 1,500 IT & support jobs (as in the people doing them, often with families) to Prague, I think mostly from Kyiv.
Great place for talent, pretty horrible for salaries and its going to get worse (from employer's perspective just to be clear, all the power to you guys there... I've lived 5 years in that city and if you are into European cities and city life in general and don't mind having mountains far this one is nice).
Ukrainian companies can just move to Poland. There's a lot of Ukrainian IT workers here already, and since long before the war started. Putin isn't manipulating Poland, and a full-scale invasion isn't "games". What is this nonsense.
Another lackluster article with a number of assertions with AI in the headline to drive clicks.
From the article...
> "Jobs are being eliminated within the IT function which are routine and mundane, such as reporting, clerical administration,” Janulaitis said. “As they start looking at AI, they’re also looking at reducing the number of programmers, systems designers, hoping that AI is going to be able to provide them some value and have a good rate of return.”
Hoping... - I think this is where "leaders" are showcasing their ignorance. They're being sold a bill of goods that, truly, doesn't exist at the levels they think it does.
Now, on the flip side, the first part of the paragraph above seems plausible. However, these mundane tasks have been able to have been automated for a long time. It's just that it wasn't en vogue.
Reducing the roles outlined will truly lead to shittier outcomes for these companies and I hope the ones that are diving head first end up paying the price as it showcases, not their efficiencies but their ignorance.
AI has a few great use cases. Replacing IT folks who are skilled and can think on their feet are not a prime target for AI.
Like any new productivity tool, the people in charge of money are hoping that it makes people so much more productive that they can have one person do the job of several
This still does replace workers in the end. It doesn't really matter if you lose your job to an autonomous AI or you lose your job because someone else is using an AI to do your job and theirs
I don't personally believe AI makes people this much more productive, but clearly people in charge of headcount are thinking it is
I doubt AI has much to do with it. But it may be given as "excuse" by CXOs to explain why the cuts have been made.
To add AI functionality, you will first need more developers, and a different kind (those that can train/evaluate/improve/deploy/integrate AI models) before potential savings can be kicking in. Some payback that may lead to layoffs could happen, but with a delay. It would be very silly to lay off a good developer rather than re-assign them, because the cost of hiring them is enormous, and you may not get the same quality again; in economic terminology, software engineers are "non-fungible resources".
jobs are leaving the US and going overseas. even h1b engineers here are treated like dogs because what are they going to do? complain and get sent home? no. they'll work weekends, and 12 hours days, sure.
and before you say this is false I've seen it firsthand many times. personally seen it with my eyes.
The article's evidence for the AI claim is just "some guy you've never heard of says so".
The accurate, but boring headline is almost always, "stock (tumble|gain) as algorithmic traders reinforce trend. Further news may occur."
They use wording -- just like this article does -- like "X happens as Y also happens".
The keyword being "as" and not "because" or "due to".
It implies causality, by coupling both in the same title, without technically linking the two.
E.g. "Stocks fall as rate increase looms"
They're basically just saying two things happened at the same time, or one after the other, but one didn't necessarily cause the other.
IOW, they know they can't link the two -- i.e. they can't user words like "because" or "due to" -- but they also know that by coupling them in the same headline, readers will still infer causality.
But specifically this is probably mostly driven so far by tech support industries. "IT" being customer service reps who use a computer to respond to chat messages, in some cases.
Or actual tech support that's had its entire entry system stripped and replaced by an AI-guided walkthrough of predefined steps customers are required to take before they talk to a human. This will certainly have impact on the amount of support staff needed, even if a portion of that is simply frustrating customers into searching for answers themselves.
How much tech support was still in the US though? Outside of small onshore teams, frontline tech support for the major players was already all in India/SEA. You could replace those people with AI, yes, but it wouldn't reflect in US unemployment stats.
Also as you flatten organizations and use cloud services you can discard lots of people. Every large company had a storage team. I worked for a big company that probably had 250 FTEs just running storage. Not anymore.
There’s also a ton of uncertainty in the US. Everyone is banking on a significant correction.
"Another reason for January’s tech job losses was that companies began implementing some intended spending cuts for this year, Janulaitis said, and many slashed budgets based on what the economy looked like during fiscal planning last year."
It works like this. Find whatever is hot that day, week or month then put it after the "as".
Stock market down as Trump holds another signing. Stock market up big as Musk slashes government spending.
* Something A (probably) happened
* Something B (probably) happened
* The author/publisher are slimy weasels and I'm not going to give their stupid article any more time
In our company we're not seeing any major impact on productivity yet and no jobs were lost. Yet.
There are several important things to look at that show this. First and foremost, IT has about a 40 year history now, with corresponding economic data.
In its entire history, its been uncorrelated with interest rates and other assets. These correlated assets are what most people refer to when they speak of wider economic circumstance. The IT industry is uncorrelated with this, with 40 years to back that up.
IT labor markets are however strongly correlated with advances in information technology. This correlation is found throughout that dataset as well, in both the boom and bust cycles.
The deep unemployment which we are seeing here, which doesn't include the first batch of laid off employees two years ago [18 mo], is only correlated and impacted by Information Technology advances.
There is only one such major advance that has been made in this time period... Artificial Intelligence.
AI has improved dramatically from a modular swappable design, and it can replace entry level positional tasks completely. It probably won't ever be able to take over the senior level positions, or the mid level positions, but that doesn't matter.
The companies involved in integrating these things into the production environment have mislead most of their customers, and in the process burnt all the bridges. Many of these companies market towards replacing workers with AI, grossly negligent of the whipsaw they are creating with that misleading narrative. In the short term they make lots of profit, while destroying the environment they need to sustain themselves.
By choking off the professional development pipeline which is a sequential pipeline in developing talent, this leaves few opportunities to progress to mid and senior level positions, which were few and far between to begin with.
When there is no economic incentive to go into any specialized field because AI has burnt the only bridge for a long-term career, people don't go into these jobs. Worse, those caught surprised by this change in circumstance, who actually have sufficient experience to perform at these mid-level ranges, may abandon the profession causing exponential brain drain. As anyone knows, people age and eventually die. Senior level people are at greater risk to this than others.
This inevitably creates a tsunami of cost in those irreplaceable positions which cannot be addressed by the market, and balloons far above what the market can bare. The forward looking expectations have made any labor in this industry worth less than AI services, and IT as a general rule is a labor multiplier where changes here eventually expand and infect everywhere.
Business is not constrained in hiring people because many business receive operations funding upfront from their financial engineering which often comes from money printers. By the time they notice the problem, it will be too late to solve it, in many respects its already too late because you have people who are incredibly competent, near geniuses, and they see no future in the industry and are retraining ahead of the curve.
AI threatens society because it disrupts the core pillars of society, which is indirect but immeasurably important to sustained organization of labor and food production. Agriculture is dependent on something like 64 different intermediate producers to maintain production levels sufficient to feed people.
Failures back to pre-modern industrial technology would mean half the people alive today starve to death, no matter how much they work.
These are the issues which the article doesn't really touch on correctly but its WSJ so what do you expect. Their journalism has never really been up to snuff.
It is right there, in the headline, sir. The economy is so good, like never before. /s
In Cybersecurity and DevTooling we've moved the entire Engineering and Product function to Israel, India, and Eastern Europe (Czechia, Poland, Romania).
We'll still fund founders in the US, but they still end up hiring in those countries instead because you can pay "Austin in 2010" salaries and get top tier talent.
20 years ago, P/L responsibility would remain in the US, but in the current iteration, even P/L stakeholders are now abroad.
But back then, the Engineering Manager or Product Manager would remain in the US.
Now even Engineering and Product leadership is being outsourced as well, which makes it easier to enforce standards.
I've been employing eastern European IT folks since the early 00's as I've founded/worked for remote only companies since the late 90's. We were ahead of the game here, and anyone we hired was not treated like a sweatshop worker. They were hired and promoted like any hire we made in the US and were simply called an employee. The talent level was same or better than the US talent level for 1/10th of the cost, especially at the mid-tier/career level.
The largest issue was timezones, but if you needed to staff a 24x7 highly skilled ops team - this was one effective way to get a great head start doing so. Plus it was relatively easy getting folks to work odd hours if you were paying double local salaries.
Since the pandemic things have entirely shifted. It used to be large companies/enterprises would offshore to sweatshop style outsourcing companies. They had a hard time competing with us since the work and responsibility simply did not attract the best candidates. We could hire directly out of local university pipelines and be extremely picky in only taking the top 1% of candidates due to this. After the pandemic this totally changed to these large companies now competing on salary at levels we no longer found competitive. We simply no longer enjoy the strategic advantage of having an untapped low-cost highly skilled labor pool in these areas any longer. Large companies have more or less adopted our model.
It's now not uncommon to have entire teams headed up by a highly competent senior VP or C level local leader who reports directly to US upper level management. They are included in all business decisions as anyone in the US would be at their level, and performance is similar to any US team.
I have always (and even written a few times on HN about the subject) thought highly compensated US engineers were being exceedingly short-sighted in their demands for WFO since this was always going to be the outcome in the end. Once you can hire someone in the midwest US, it's not really a huge leap to realizing you can do the same 2500 miles away in a low cost country. There are still tons of labor arbitrage opportunities left in the world and the story that there is no local technical talent in these places is utterly false. It's always been a management problem.
Over time it will even out - and it has quite a bit. Salaries are now maybe 1/3 to 1/2 US salaries at the same talent level, so it still has a long way to go in my opinion. You are only seeing the start of many companies building up long-term strategic plans in these regions - these things take years to decades to be fully realized.
Most US WFH engineers will be competing on salary/skillsets in a world market within their lifetimes regardless of cost of living differences. The writing is on the wall, and I personally believe the die has been cast at this point.
Like, only now?! This had been the case my entire career to the point I got fed up of rat race to the delight of foreign superior, became cynical and unemployable. It's not ey-ay, nor outsourcing, it's the economay. We have a crisis, sir.
Small org, no low-performers, no layoffs. Same result as everywhere else.
This was totally predictable. If your job can be shipped to Kansas from SV because it is cheaper, it won't be too long before it is shipped to Canada which cheaper than Kansas and then to Colombia.
But HN is still embracing remote work. I hope those in the US/Western Europe wake up soon otherwise all the coding jobs will go the way of manufacturing jobs very soon - either done by robots or done by cheaper labor in Asia or Africa or LatAm.
Putin is covertly manipulating Poland with the same games as he did with Ukraine. And now it appears increasingly likely he has the right guy in the white house to take what he wants.
Great place for talent, pretty horrible for salaries and its going to get worse (from employer's perspective just to be clear, all the power to you guys there... I've lived 5 years in that city and if you are into European cities and city life in general and don't mind having mountains far this one is nice).
From the article...
> "Jobs are being eliminated within the IT function which are routine and mundane, such as reporting, clerical administration,” Janulaitis said. “As they start looking at AI, they’re also looking at reducing the number of programmers, systems designers, hoping that AI is going to be able to provide them some value and have a good rate of return.”
Hoping... - I think this is where "leaders" are showcasing their ignorance. They're being sold a bill of goods that, truly, doesn't exist at the levels they think it does.
Now, on the flip side, the first part of the paragraph above seems plausible. However, these mundane tasks have been able to have been automated for a long time. It's just that it wasn't en vogue.
Reducing the roles outlined will truly lead to shittier outcomes for these companies and I hope the ones that are diving head first end up paying the price as it showcases, not their efficiencies but their ignorance.
AI has a few great use cases. Replacing IT folks who are skilled and can think on their feet are not a prime target for AI.
This still does replace workers in the end. It doesn't really matter if you lose your job to an autonomous AI or you lose your job because someone else is using an AI to do your job and theirs
I don't personally believe AI makes people this much more productive, but clearly people in charge of headcount are thinking it is
To add AI functionality, you will first need more developers, and a different kind (those that can train/evaluate/improve/deploy/integrate AI models) before potential savings can be kicking in. Some payback that may lead to layoffs could happen, but with a delay. It would be very silly to lay off a good developer rather than re-assign them, because the cost of hiring them is enormous, and you may not get the same quality again; in economic terminology, software engineers are "non-fungible resources".
and before you say this is false I've seen it firsthand many times. personally seen it with my eyes.