The charts show software dev gaining more jobs under the COVID demand and stimulus swing, and then losing more as those went away and monetary policy got tighter than even it had been even before the COVID stimulus.
The easiest explanation for the whole chart is "Software dev is more reactive to the monetary policy environment than most other industries, because more of it is funded by new capital investment -- whether VC money or otherwise -- instead of ongoing operations of stable firms compared to most other industries."
Trying to add other explanations is fun, but there's not a lot of evidence for any of them, or even that more explanations are needed.
How are sec 175 changes in the US not also a top explanation? This has a massive cost to small businesses and startups trying to hire software engineers, and a big impact to any team trying to grow.
Because the data doesn't match. The author addresses this in his blog post -- essentially every country has the same graph of SWE jobs, but only the US has sec 175.
> How are sec 175 changes in the US not also a top explanation?
You mean the change from deductible as a current expense to five-year amortization under changes to Sec 174? In an easy money situation, the way it increases tax liability in year one while decreasing in year 2-5 is not a big deal, it becomes more of an issue as the cost of financing goes up, so the main effect is to increase the already-high sensitivity of software development to tightening credit.
... partly because it's quicker to get started with software projects?
No expensive machines or lab equipment, sometimes not even office space needed, just people with laptops
But the cycle wave length should ... Be similar to how many years people spend studying? That doesn't seem to be the case here?
Quoting the Wikipedia link:
"high salaries in a particular sector lead to an increased number of students studying the relevant subject; when these students enter the job market at the same time after several years of studying, their job prospects and salaries are much worse due to the new surplus of applicants."
Maybe you could say it's related to investors' pork cycle (of different/unknown wavelength) not students' pork cycle :-)
Or maybe just one-time opportunism: low interest rates etc
I tend to agree with you, if only because the swing in Europe on the IT job market has had less amplitude and is more spread out, similar to the difference in stimulus policy.
I believe many software tools work like a vice for beurocrats making the beurocracy way less efficient.
Like, forcing some not very edge case friendly set of text field validation rules onto the beurocrats such that he can't just do what he tries to do as he could with paper work.
In many orgs. nowadays the processes seem to be made to fit the computer programs not the needs of the beurocracy.
And even if they produce "real" products. How many of them are needed. How many of them are redoing the same thing. And how many could in perfect world be done more efficiently by resusing some common solution.
Jobs funded by speculative investment that are highly sensitive to monetary policy are pretty orthogonal to the kind of thing addressed by "bullshit jobs" theory. They may be societally harmful or low-social-value more often than other jobs, but generally for very different reasons than bullshit jobs. They are "lottery ticket" jobs, where many are wasted, some are very valuable, and its hard to predict in advance which are which (for investor value; for various reasons endemic to capitalism more generally, this is a very imperfect proxy for social value, but that problem is also mostly orthogonal to the kind off harmful job "bullshit jobs" addresses.)
FRED wants the implication to be AI related, but it seems pretty clear that all/most of this decline is related to their interest rate policies creating a raft of bullshit companies funded by too many dollars chasing ever more far-fetched returns...
Returns are no longer the actual goal. The actual goal is the perception of far reaching future returns. The perception of those returns is much more valuable than the actual returns. Because the wealthy don't want profits and dividends that get taxed. They want ever increasing stock prices so they can continuously grow their asset base to borrow against so they can never sell said assets this triggering capital gains taxes.
e.g. because of Big VC (a16z, other firms with dozens or hundreds of investing staff), VCs don't stick around firms long enough for real returns (cash distributed) to matter. If you're at a place and your stuff is marked up 10x after 4 years, you just hop to become a GP and try to ride the next markup wave. Even if these people exit VC after 10 years that is still 10 years of deals that all flopped.
This might not even be the individual VC's fault -- there may just be too many venture dollars chasing too few power law returns, so you get a surge of startups circa 2019-2022 that all disappear
Investing for distant future returns is not bad and favours long-term thinking over short-term profit. It is closer to the best (though abstract) metric, net positive value created, which naturally translates to ROI in an ideal world.
The problem is that in this non-ideal world value creation can become completely detached from returns: when instead of investing into people creating value, or distant future returns, or even medium term returns, it becomes about investing into other people investing in it—not too different from a pyramid scheme and various pump-and-dumps.
Companies with actual profits can, and do, simply buy back their own stock. Inflating market expectation of future cashflows is not the only way to realize asset appreciation.
Wants is maybe too strong, but I've seen this chart in a couple of different substacks / editorials, which I assumed is the fed's press office shopping this story around because "AI taking jobs" is zeitgeist-y right now.
Then, assuming that the fake job posters are still there and that they now have AI help as well, the fall in the number of postings is more concerning.
Sometimes the position is simply shit. “My” job ad is open again. Looks like the third guy lasted there 6 months too. Every day new agency posts the same job. But Python developer, who can fix custom hardware from the 90s in the night shift is rare. And the salary was very average too.
I had an interview process frozen because of a hiring freeze a few months back. Then news of layoffs occured, predictably.
Last week I see the exact job I applied to posted yet again. Ghost jobs really need to be punished. If you aren't actively talking to candidates within X days of posting or are reposting a job before Y days, there needs to be some disincenive to not do that.
Any H1B related postings are a tiny fraction of the postings by recruiters and recruitment agencies trying to build up their databases, and companies wanting to look like they’re continuing to grow.
I don't know how this isn't considered SEC fraud by publicly traded companies.
the whole point is to obfuscate growth or decline to blur the ability of business intelligence units to make prediction about the company.
it's a scam for applicants, and a scam on the market.
I'm not convinced H1B issues are related, though I'm sure there are fake adverts for jobs that are unfillable to get H1Bs in, too. Unfortunately Musk, Ramaswamy, and DOGE are all about cheap workers.
The scams and fake job postings on the market are also increasing rapidly, outpacing the growth of overall job listings. This trend is significantly affecting the accuracy of employment and job availability tracking.
People underestimate just how much of the industry was total garbage, pre-AI, pre-pandemic, the signs were all there in 2015. Who remembers "the average tenure of a software engineer in the SF bay area is 18 months". Was it ever really sustainable? That means that after just 18 months you'll get an offer from a company more fantastical than the one you're currently at, which has even more frothing-at-the-mouth investors and converted some of that into higher salary for you. And your current employer can't hope to match it, because they have already been written off by investors. We have a LONG way to fall to reach the true software industry value.
Our company just let go of all our remote LATAM hires. We paid high end in their LCOL areas.
They were somewhere between ok and not good. Felt like we got about what we paid for - their cost was about 50% of a US dev. They were as productive as a low end US dev, so in some cases ok value but since hiring low performers tends to hurt a team overall they weren’t worth it.
We’re a mid range company (decent cash comp, not much else since startup). I’m sure if you’re paying more you can do better. But that’s how it’s always been hasn’t it?
As a Brazilian dev living in Europe, one thing people just don't get about offshoring is that good devs have options, even in poorer countries. Companies offshoring usually offshore crappy projects, crappy projects attract bad talent.
Also really top devs (at least in Brazil) can make more than 50k USD per year (fluctuates widely based on exchange rates) at Brazilian companies, it is cheaper than US but the tail-end of talent can still be expensive.
If you really want to attract good devs in cheaper areas the best way is to just open a branch of your office there, pay top-salary and don't just use it a dump ground for the projects no one at home wants to take. So treat them the same as at home. I had a roommate who worked in one of those companies that take offshoring projects, lets just say it is not the best talent pool and the good devs there leave fast.
This is the usual ebb and flow of offshoring in the tech industry that's been going on since the 90s.
There has never been a scalable arbitrage for tech talent by going over to another geo, and there won't be one in the foreseeable future. What US HCoL talent gets paid is unfortunately the fair and natural market rate for that caliber of talent, at least if you need to hire more than like 10 people.
> I’m sure if you’re paying more you can do better. But that’s how it’s always been hasn’t it?
I’ve been hearing about outsourcing destroying jobs since the 90s and that’s how it’s always gone: the suits salivated at the prospect of cutting wages by, say, 90% and had total write-offs because of it, because they missed that even in a poor country people have options and anyone smart enough to be a good developer is also smart enough to recognize that their skills are worth more. Outsourcing has some big costs related to communications so while you could find decent people at 50-70% of local labor rates, coordination overhead makes that a net loss even before you hit things like the security risks.
Part of the problem there is that the business people really want to think that they understand their business so well that they can give perfect instructions, and it takes a certain humility to recognize that more time goes into knowledge transfer and discovering the true needs than might be obvious.
Interesting… 50% of US dev cost is like what if you don’t mind saying? 100k?
I found the biggest issue with these engagements is the trust with remote developers.
My workplace is mostly hiring LATAM and parts of Europe at this point. Occasionally NA but mostly for higher level engineering positions to backfill roles for people who left.
Hailing from a popular outsourcing destination I can attest to the fact that layoffs happened here as well, but now the same people are being rehired for 10-15% less. No growth whatsoever though.
everything provided by offshoring to india is just an expensive tech debt full of spaghetti code. it simply doesn't work and causes harm to the customers. but because cheap it keeps getting sold. working with indians is a nightmare bar none. and i'm saying this as someone who has been to india and is also personally intrigued by its culture. but it's conway's law all the way - visit places like mumbai or delhi and this is what you'll get ... chaos that kind of works.
I think this is a bit unfair and biased to make such broad statements as you are doing here. From my experience, the outsourcing company rarely takes the time to properly onboard outsourced workers, they are not treated as part of the team, and the really shitty work that no-one else wants to do is the work that gets outsourced.
I reckon there's a lot of "garbage in garbage out" going on, and if an org took the time and effort to actually treat Indian (or any outsourced team) devs like their own, things will be much better. But when you do that the overhead shoots up, and that cost/benefit analysis you did during the proposal to offshore flies out the window.
I don't mean to spread FUD, but as an interviewer at a FAANG in the US, I have mostly been interviewing candidates in LATAM (Brazil and Mexico). Same for some of my other coworkers.
The boring reality is that the price of labor roughly reflects the productivity companies typically get. Because if there is ever some clear win in some location, people start hiring there, and things start to balance out again.
I am not sure how things work in US but, living in an Eastern European country, I can say that salaries started growing, almost reaching western european levels, after which many foreign companies closed offices and moved to cheaper countries like India and Pakistan.
Where in Eastern Europe? At least from my perspective (I've done hiring at several companies, albeit just hiring individual remote workers rather than open a local office) developers in Poland and Czechia are still very competitively priced (less expensive than north/western Europe and A LOT less expensive than the US).
That's pretty weird. Usually, less companies mean less demand for labor. If supply is the same, that means price-for-labor (salaries) would go down. Unless, this was accompanied by people leaving (reduction in supply). Do you have an explanation for this?
It's a pretty common place to get outsourced devs from. But it doesn't have the conglomerate offices like India, so you have to do more to get a team from there. The people are basically the same so same level education, same-ish salaries, same English understanding, etc.
When I was hired during the pandemic, I was the ~140th hire. In 2 years, that number ballooned to 700 people. Billion dollar acquisition later, I have to fill-out paperwork, fight other teams, perform a ritual sacrifice, only to have everyone reject my candidates that are deemed too expensive.
The demand for engineers during the pandemic may have been artificial, but there is still need for people today. Some companies don't hire because they were built to be sold.
I don't disagree with you but a different view that could support the OP hypothesis could be that prior to the AI boom we could see that 90% of the capital went into "normal" software engineering jobs while maybe only 10% of the capital went into the ML market.
Now in the AI boom era, 90% of the capital goes into the AI while 10% goes into SE jobs. That could explain the drop in SE jobs.
> Also, software engineering means much more than writing code.
What if it speeds up the part of pumping out widgets in the widget factory, shipping Spring Boot / Laravel / whatever projects more quickly and therefore individual devs becoming more productive on cookie cutter projects (without necessarily getting more money for it either).
Readit News
The easiest explanation for the whole chart is "Software dev is more reactive to the monetary policy environment than most other industries, because more of it is funded by new capital investment -- whether VC money or otherwise -- instead of ongoing operations of stable firms compared to most other industries."
Trying to add other explanations is fun, but there's not a lot of evidence for any of them, or even that more explanations are needed.
You mean the change from deductible as a current expense to five-year amortization under changes to Sec 174? In an easy money situation, the way it increases tax liability in year one while decreasing in year 2-5 is not a big deal, it becomes more of an issue as the cost of financing goes up, so the main effect is to increase the already-high sensitivity of software development to tightening credit.
No expensive machines or lab equipment, sometimes not even office space needed, just people with laptops
But the cycle wave length should ... Be similar to how many years people spend studying? That doesn't seem to be the case here?
Quoting the Wikipedia link:
"high salaries in a particular sector lead to an increased number of students studying the relevant subject; when these students enter the job market at the same time after several years of studying, their job prospects and salaries are much worse due to the new surplus of applicants."
Maybe you could say it's related to investors' pork cycle (of different/unknown wavelength) not students' pork cycle :-)
Or maybe just one-time opportunism: low interest rates etc
Like, forcing some not very edge case friendly set of text field validation rules onto the beurocrats such that he can't just do what he tries to do as he could with paper work.
In many orgs. nowadays the processes seem to be made to fit the computer programs not the needs of the beurocracy.
... to begin the loop again
I suspect its more a structural issue
e.g. because of Big VC (a16z, other firms with dozens or hundreds of investing staff), VCs don't stick around firms long enough for real returns (cash distributed) to matter. If you're at a place and your stuff is marked up 10x after 4 years, you just hop to become a GP and try to ride the next markup wave. Even if these people exit VC after 10 years that is still 10 years of deals that all flopped.
This might not even be the individual VC's fault -- there may just be too many venture dollars chasing too few power law returns, so you get a surge of startups circa 2019-2022 that all disappear
The problem is that in this non-ideal world value creation can become completely detached from returns: when instead of investing into people creating value, or distant future returns, or even medium term returns, it becomes about investing into other people investing in it—not too different from a pyramid scheme and various pump-and-dumps.
FRED is just a descriptive tool: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/business/economy/fred-eco...
Where is there any indication that FRED wants this?
That interest rates started to rise right when the tax changes to make it less advantageous happened? 1-2 punch.
Deleted Comment
Last week I see the exact job I applied to posted yet again. Ghost jobs really need to be punished. If you aren't actively talking to candidates within X days of posting or are reposting a job before Y days, there needs to be some disincenive to not do that.
the whole point is to obfuscate growth or decline to blur the ability of business intelligence units to make prediction about the company.
it's a scam for applicants, and a scam on the market.
I'm not convinced H1B issues are related, though I'm sure there are fake adverts for jobs that are unfillable to get H1Bs in, too. Unfortunately Musk, Ramaswamy, and DOGE are all about cheap workers.
They were somewhere between ok and not good. Felt like we got about what we paid for - their cost was about 50% of a US dev. They were as productive as a low end US dev, so in some cases ok value but since hiring low performers tends to hurt a team overall they weren’t worth it.
We’re a mid range company (decent cash comp, not much else since startup). I’m sure if you’re paying more you can do better. But that’s how it’s always been hasn’t it?
Also really top devs (at least in Brazil) can make more than 50k USD per year (fluctuates widely based on exchange rates) at Brazilian companies, it is cheaper than US but the tail-end of talent can still be expensive.
If you really want to attract good devs in cheaper areas the best way is to just open a branch of your office there, pay top-salary and don't just use it a dump ground for the projects no one at home wants to take. So treat them the same as at home. I had a roommate who worked in one of those companies that take offshoring projects, lets just say it is not the best talent pool and the good devs there leave fast.
This is the usual ebb and flow of offshoring in the tech industry that's been going on since the 90s.
There has never been a scalable arbitrage for tech talent by going over to another geo, and there won't be one in the foreseeable future. What US HCoL talent gets paid is unfortunately the fair and natural market rate for that caliber of talent, at least if you need to hire more than like 10 people.
I’ve been hearing about outsourcing destroying jobs since the 90s and that’s how it’s always gone: the suits salivated at the prospect of cutting wages by, say, 90% and had total write-offs because of it, because they missed that even in a poor country people have options and anyone smart enough to be a good developer is also smart enough to recognize that their skills are worth more. Outsourcing has some big costs related to communications so while you could find decent people at 50-70% of local labor rates, coordination overhead makes that a net loss even before you hit things like the security risks.
Part of the problem there is that the business people really want to think that they understand their business so well that they can give perfect instructions, and it takes a certain humility to recognize that more time goes into knowledge transfer and discovering the true needs than might be obvious.
There are great engineers around the world but why would they accept ten beans an hour if they can take a plane to a different country and earn fifty?
The talent from LATAM are not just sitting in the rainforest waiting for your phonecall.
I reckon there's a lot of "garbage in garbage out" going on, and if an org took the time and effort to actually treat Indian (or any outsourced team) devs like their own, things will be much better. But when you do that the overhead shoots up, and that cost/benefit analysis you did during the proposal to offshore flies out the window.
It's happening, and happening fast.
The boring reality is that the price of labor roughly reflects the productivity companies typically get. Because if there is ever some clear win in some location, people start hiring there, and things start to balance out again.
Deleted Comment
Outsourcing is a cost savings measure. It's a symptom, not the cause of the issue
The demand for engineers during the pandemic may have been artificial, but there is still need for people today. Some companies don't hire because they were built to be sold.
I can't agree with the conclusion. I can come with tens of examples of when using AI doesn't work.
Also, software engineering means much more than writing code.
Now in the AI boom era, 90% of the capital goes into the AI while 10% goes into SE jobs. That could explain the drop in SE jobs.
What if it speeds up the part of pumping out widgets in the widget factory, shipping Spring Boot / Laravel / whatever projects more quickly and therefore individual devs becoming more productive on cookie cutter projects (without necessarily getting more money for it either).