36
Stanford study: AI replacing entry level jobs
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
36 points (100.0% liked)
technology
24221 readers
270 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Assuming this country survives the next 10 years, what would happen when people retire and they need senior workers?
It's tragedy of the commons type shit. We're seeing this big in software engineering firms. Nobody wants to hire juniors anymore because you have to train them, and if you're the loser company that hires juniors and trains them you're basically just training juniors to be eaten up by Big Tech as soon as they become seniors, so it's just a "waste of money." Of course if everybody thinks this way (as they are) then nobody trains juniors and you have no senior engineers in 15 years. But executives can only think of the next quarter so uh who cares.
to some of us it's comedy of the commons
Executives want to think of their employees as replaceable cogs that can be abused and replaced to turn a profit. Training is a cost to them and of course your whole logic holds. It is really a contradiction of capitalism. Tragedy of the commons is a capitalist apologetic invention, believe it or not, to justify privatization. Capital needs to maximize profit, it will do so best with a skilled workforce, but it is against the interests of individual capitalists to train workers that they believe will just leave after being trained.
Extending the contradiction, these employers are the same ones that avoid promoting from within or giving raises to retain workers. They think they're maximizing profits by avoiding raises for 2-5 years but then eat the larger costs of constantly interviewing candidates and paying them even more than those who left. And don't even think about the dead weight of the bloated management structure, another contradiction intended to discipline labor and validate the capitalists.
That's the next CEO's problem
These companies want to never have senior workers. They only keep them on by economic necessity. Senior workers are more expensive, so they really want to "de-skill" their workforce in order to decrease how much they will pay and make it so that they don't lose as much when firinh anyone for any reason.
When companies fail at this, which is what most of these will do, they reach a profitability crisis and either go bankrupt or get bought out by more liquid monopolies. If the big monopolies run into trouble they get the state to bail them out. Those that survive and try to be productive will need to pay a premium for senior labor and consider increasing levels of training they will fund. But this really depends on how much money they can throw around, which will be not much when this bubble bursts unless the fed goes ham.