I’ve been receiving emails from reps at companies lately. Some are from companies that didn’t hire me after getting laid off in 2022 for petty/unclear reasons. I had written some of them off as fake job postings. Now between that experience, this supposed decline, and ghost job postings I’m not sure if it’s a serious email or not.
Some hallucinations stay in codebases longer than others! If there were zero hallucinations there would really be no novel output. Some hallucinations are useful and some are not.
The term "hallucinations" has always frustrated me. The marketing there makes sense, but an LLM that hallucinates is an LLM doing exactly what it was designed for -predicting what a human might say in response.
Facts don't really play a part there, if a response is factual its only a sign that the training set largely agreed on the facts (meaning the correlation of token sequence was high).
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.
BLS says there are 140,000 of new job postings for sw engs annually. DOL stats show ~120,000 PERM applications (for which job postings are required - they're not required for H1Bs), of which probably only 20% are for software engineers. So 30,000 / 140,000 - ~21%. Pretty small fraction.
I am not a Trump supporter and I didn't vote for him, but the fact is that Biden's BLS numbers were always manipulated to portray the former president as successful. These statistics are unreliable, in addition, the underlying premise of relying on job postings was flawed from the start which was my initial argument.
Take a look at this, the previous administration hired hundreds of thousands of gov workers to inflate the employment numbers.
Doesn't pass the smell test since the chart for government employees clearly includes more than just Federal. The Federal workforce is about 3mm, but that graph shows 23mm [1], so it clearly can't just be Federal employees.
EDIT: here you go, just looking at Federal employees [2]:
Jan 2021: 2.89 million
Jan 2025: 3.02 million
The Federal government added ~130k employees over the four years that Biden was in office, an increase of about 4.4%.
During that exact same period, all private employment went from 121 million to 135 million, an increase of about 11%. So Federal employment grew slower under Biden than private employment did. [3]
Thanks for the additional information. The thing is the Trump administration is about to fire 200k probationary federal employees meaning they were hired within in the last year or so. These numbers don't add up either.
"A probationary employee is often a recent hire to the agency or *a long-serving employee who was moved or promoted into a new position*. They are put on a "probationary" period that typically lasts for one or two years, though it can be longer at some agencies. It's like a trial period during which the worker and their performance are under heightened scrutiny."
Yeah, I know FRED is a legit source, but I have absolutely horrible experiences everytime some internet rando is trying to interpret their charts. Just two random FRED charts with marker ink on them already was sending red flags.
I'm a part of the circus, and I don't think many of these have h1-b code smells to it. Companies just wanna hype up AI or whatever and make less people do more work.
If this has general ghost jobs caught in the crossfire too, that'd be amazing. Just don't waste my time on something you already know doesn't exist.
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.
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.
Author of the article - and analyzed the likely impact of Section 174 in detail a year back [1], in Jan 2024, when it became clear that it was not being reversed like most assumed it would be.
I originally didn’t mention this because S174 impacts the US and US-HQ’d companies. In this data other countries like Germany, UK, France all see a similar drop. Also, S174 impact likely really started from early 2024, when companies impacted had to pay high taxes and realized the change is here to stay with no end in sight. Doesn’t explain the drop since 2022.
Updated the article to make this clear though. It was not in the original version - thanks for the note!
We are in a period analogous to the end of the Dotcom bubble. The Internet is obviously going to change the world, but right now all it can do is pets.com, etoys.com, kozmo.com. People are out of work, and those with other alternatives or preferences will leave the tech industry. In 10 years entire new platforms and modes will exist that generate even more opportunities than before. Some variation of this wave has been surfed up and down since the invention and industrialization of computation.
The internet created vast new opportunities for software engineers to create value.
Generative AI is about replacing software engineers in creating that value.
These are very different things.
Opportunity: you can buy $1500 in shingles, put them on someone's roof yourself in 4 days, and clear $5000 profit -- somewhere where rents/mortgage are under $1500 a month and a nice restaurant meal for two is under $50.
It's rapidly looking like nerding out while pining for the old days where engineering knowledge and education was valuable is maladaptive. The sunk cost fallacy can be real.
You can replace software engineers with anything else here. Most VPs and higher leadership I see at FAANGs (who're arguably the ones recognizing opportunity) come from a PM or other non-software background. As much as I'd like to believe we're special, it doesn't seem like we are any special. We have no protection.
It's best to start hedging and learning other skills. Or focus on making as much money as possible ASAP so you have some financial safety net to fall back to as AI and Trump/Musk and offshoring has increased in recent years. All of us need an escape plan ready.
I don't mean to spread FUD. Just hedge please. I assume I have at most a decade of tech career left in the best case. A couple years in the worst case.
If the analogy is LLMs are today's equivalent of the web, I'm skeptical. Internet-based communication replaced technology like telephones and fax machines for synchronous and asynchronous telecommunication. People like and need to talk to other people. It was clearly valuable from day 1. What is the equivalent value proposition for LLMs? They make for really cool and splashy demos. But practical usage doesn't seem to keep pace with the hype. Why is it such a safe assumption that this is just like the invention of the Internet (or, as Sundar Pichai put it, the invention of fire)?
That really depends on the domain. In fields like manufacturing, resources extraction, and pharmaceuticals most of the valuable information is locked behind corporate firewalls.
Why do you think that? I collect books, mainly published from 1850s to 1980s, and it's not uncommon that they only occur in library listings and sometimes Goodreads when I search for information about their authors and history. This holds for some english language literature as well, but more so for books in other languages.
The Internet is basically a young, small portion of writings in english, as far as I can tell.
It depends. If fed with high quality content (e.g. publications) results are decent and mostly on the positive side of time savings/value. Try to ask it a simple question, such as "pros and cons of these two smartphones" and it will suck up marketing bullshit from the internet and give you a convincing, but useless answer. I was really surprised to find this out, because I've been mostly living in the "scientific research" bubble, where it performs good to excellent and really saves time.
Like half of software jobs are Doing Something so that management feels like they are innovative thought leaders of the tech community, while the other half of the software jobs are keeping the unsexy business critical software working.
Even if everything being done with LLMs is useless, if you can do the same amount of useless with half as many developers, it's bad news for us.
I have personally written VBA macros (or hell - just a decent Excel spreadsheet...) that have put people out of their jobs. I didn't know this at the time, I was just a young gun able to see how to make some slow repetitive jobs, faster.
Later moved to Oracle / SQL Server / C# / microservices / CICD etc etc) but hell, that was my whole career 2002-2012 across various companies. Making cool tools for smart people, things the accelerated the company in smal;l but measurable ways, that unbeknownst to me would absolutely have directly resulted in a team of 3-5 being reduced to a team of 1, or a team of 1 not being expanded to be a team of 3-5.
"Hence there is immanent in capital an inclination and constant tendency, to heighten the productiveness of labour, in order to cheapen commodities, and by such cheapening to cheapen the labourer himself. "
"No doubt, in turning them out of this “temporal” world, the machinery caused them no more than “a temporary inconvenience.” For the rest, since machinery is continually seizing upon new fields of production, its temporary effect is really permanent. Hence, the character of independence and estrangement which the capitalist mode of production as a whole gives to the instruments of labour and to the product, as against the workman, is developed by means of machinery into a thorough antagonism. Therefore, it is with the advent of machinery, that the workman for the first time brutally revolts against the instruments of labour."
soon we'll see if the old man was wrong and short-sighted, or if what has happened since the internet revolution is just an abnormal period in centuries
I’m not sure that’s the case even if in retrospect we can clearly argue this
In 1998, Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel memorial prize in economic sciences, infamously predicted that “the growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s” [1] and even though that turned out to be spectacularly wrong it shows the attitude in the early days wasn’t one of absolute certainty.
And certainly the current AI boom is most visibly known for LLMs but there is a lot more happening beyond chatbots.
there was a lot of skepticism, and from some heavy hitters.
Sears famously laughing at online orders is a great example. They already had the mail over market owned, and already had the distribution, sourcing, and utterly dominant brand recognition in that space. People used to order homes from Sears!
They just needed the online catalog. But the CEO was a psychopath Randian who thought the internet was a fad and now Amazon runs things.
Same with Toy R Us, and Radioshack, which did a lot of mail order.
> We are in a period analogous to the end of the Dotcom bubble. The Internet is obviously going to change the world, but right now all it can do is pets.com, etoys.com, kozmo.com
It certainly feels this way if your only perspective on the tech industry comes from headlines and social media.
Step outside of the doomerism whirlwind that is internet headlines and it's a very different story. There are a lot of companies doing great things and delivering products that people use, but they don't make for catchy headlines. So you don't hear about them.
One barrier in communication is that developers are not the ones able to post for jobs. I would love to have another coworker in software development. I have no say in hiring. Even a QA with a software development background would be gold.
The automation industry with physical products interaction is where my labor shortage lives.
I will be requesting support this year. Software development is about solutions and all industry pivots have a learning curve.
I got some great opportunities from that post but lately, it has been a nothing burger. I have been without a job for nearly a year and have applied to many positions on that thread with just one reply and that fizzled out despite being objectively qualified (a take home assignment, successfully completed within the allotted time of 24 hours).
I don't think it's doomerism. I started my career during the dotcom boom. I think we are right now in a transition period that is little bit of the start of the boom (just add AI! is the new "just add Internet!") and also a bit of the scorched earth after the initial boom, when all the tourists (CS is easy money!) are rerouted to other careers if at all possible.
This also means it is a great time to start a small, profitable business because labor is undervalued.
Except now orders more magnitude of internet connected high knowledge third worlders are not only chomping at the bit for these jobs but qualified for them, and remote work is now largely accepted.
The final phase of this is where Americans start moving to some hut in the Congo to survive off the market wages offered when the supply side of the supply/demand curve blows up.
Companies have moved away from tech innovation driving growth. Instead they’ve realized they’re defending mature, boring business models. They need to keep the lights on with some good-enough engineers.
Just think how much the investor narrative has shifted from early 2020s. Back then everyone talked about the business areas they were expanding into using tech. Now, investors get hyped up when you do the same thing, at lower cost. Less about growth, more about predictability. Which makes sense. Do investors view Amazon as a high tech company (as in 2020 and before) or a predictable business? dare I say utility?
It explains layoffs, forced RTO, etc. They simply don’t care if even their best leave. Their MBA executives know optimization/keeping the lights on - and less about innovation.
Yes and no. They are more or less trying to drain their workforce, yes. But they are also investing very hard in AI, which is about as speculative as you can get at the moment. Keep just enough (and maybe reduce that amount by 10%) to keep the mature tech running and then throw any extra power into the AI hype bubble.
In all of my software career I have only worked for a company that actually produced software twice. One was as a contractor to Intuit and the other was Bank of America. Absolutely everybody else had these massive fleets of developers who struggled to put text on screen from a high centralized database to a web browser.
Few, maybe 15%, of those people really seemed like they could program. Everybody else talked about their favorite tech stack and their opinions on code styles. It kind of felt like code masturbation. A shrinking job market is not surprising.
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.
I used to work at a SF startup before the FAANG about 4-5 years back. All the engineers there have unfortunately been replaced with those in LATAM too. LATAM engineers were making like $80-$90K in USD, which is apparently really good money there, whereas US engineer asked for base pay twice that. So it seems like a win-win deal for the cofounders and LATAM engineers.
This was unsurprising when American employees decided to use the significant power they gained over the pandemic to insist on WFH.
Whether working collaboratively in an office was beneficial or not, employers certainly believed it to be so. They believed it so much that employers, pre pandemic, were willing to hire employees a single time zone away from SF, and then pay them a significant one time amount along with a much higher annual salary to relocate them to SF.
This belief in higher productivity when teams were geographically collocated was the entire basis for which employers were willing to pay American employees several multiples of what they would pay employees abroad.
But the same employees who were benefiting from this decided they didn’t want to keep that advantage anymore.
And now since WFH has become the norm in the US, employers are realizing there’s no need to pay to keep employees in the U.S. and outsourcing to significantly cheaper locations instead.
That doesn't explain why many execs were keen on RTO. If it was reducing costs, you would thing they would've wanted to draw out WFH for as long as possible. But there a clear rush to end WFH as soon as possible and implement unilateral mandates to get everyone back to office.
It’s really hard to see what a team/people on it is actually doing if people are remote.
It’s also much harder in general to communicate less formally and form deep relationships.
For execs and managers, this can be a big problem.
If it isn’t possible to do it the ‘old way’, remote work can and does work (albeit in different ways and with different constraints). But if doing remote work, why not do it somewhere else?
> It’s really hard to see what a team/people on it is actually doing if people are remote.
If you're totally disconnected from the work, sure. But for someone actually paying, it shouldn't be that hard to see whether the list of priorities for this month is actually getting finished or not.
Beyond the most trivial work, that really isn’t simple or straightforward without watching everything like a hawk.
Outsourcing manufacturing had the same problem - people thought they could send drawings to China, and with some straightforward checks, could get what they wanted cheaper. That was not at all the case, however, and there is a LOT of QA, additional checks, additional data leakage and competitive risks, etc.
For instance, if in the US people might actually follow the law around things like NDAs and non-competes most of the time, what about the jurisdiction you’re outsourcing too? How would you even know? How would you enforce consequences? How about data security?
>Beyond the most trivial work, that really isn’t simple or straightforward without watching everything like a hawk.
Sounds more like a personal problem than a technical one. Besides, if it was actually enough of an issue there wouldn't be so much outsourcing. I just see it as more smokescreens to cut costs.
> It’s really hard to see what a team/people on it is actually doing if people are remote.
Only if you are thinking like a McDonald’s shift manager. Measuring software developers by time-in-seat is tacitly acknowledging that your managers aren’t doing their jobs up to the C-suite.
The explanation is that they wanted the (perceived) productivity back. Alternatively, they may have wanted to push overall compensation down (e.g. having some employees quit and only luring back the ones they actually like). Of course, it varies a lot from market to market, depending on how hard it is to reduce headcount in the first place (e.g., in Germany, it is much harder than in the US).
> And now since WFH has become the norm in the US, employers are realizing there’s no need to pay to keep employees in the U.S. and outsourcing to significantly cheaper locations instead.
“Whoa we can do this cheaper in another country???” is not a new phenomenon. Companies have been trying to do this for literally decades at this point. The reason so many jobs still exist in the US is because it doesn’t end up working that well. I’m not _that_ old and I was around at IBM for two separate rounds of “outsource-it-to-India-no-wait-bring-it-back” and IBM was and still is very keen to ship everything overseas.
I’m not saying it won’t eventually stick, but I think it’s important to dispel this notion that WFH made everyone have this sudden epiphany that US workers aren’t necessary anymore. It’s been going on for ages.
It goes in cycles, often depending on the business focus at the time.
Right now (and back then), primary focus was on cost. Got to juice those margins somehow, and it isn’t going to happen by opening new markets (probably!).
When outsourcing is less envogue, it’s usually because there is some big growth opportunity and they are trying to get things moving as fast as possible. That tends to require higher end (but more expensive!) staff working in closer communication with management/execs.
It’s the difference between trying to improve margins on an existing product, and trying to grow the top end of a new product.
The work force abroad has caught up a lot though. Online learning has made it much easier to improve skills and their English has also improved. And since everyone has become more used to remote work, communication is also much better now. One reason a lot of outsourcing efforts in the early 90s failed was also because the Indian teams weren't properly kept in the loop.
Core issues haven't changed, though. major timezone differences, still some communication gap for technical discussions, and (for some cultures) a different approach to how to work and deliver on tasks. And of course, American suits still go for the cheapest bid instead of focusing on quality and efficiency.
Exactly. That’s around salary for senior engineer at big corp according union tables in Germany. If you’re really good or a manager, 110k is in there. More is doable at senior manager/director level or in key position in a company led by owner. US faang salaries sound here like science fiction.
Yes, 90 to 110k is pretty much TOP. A lot of seniority and experience. If you want to go higher, you have to go management path (even lower management is included in the union)
If you look at the table of salaries of a big union [1], you can multiply that number by about 13.5 to get the annual salary. Can vary a little %, but a good estimation.
The salaries in the EU stagnated in the last years, whereas in USA they were moving.
Currently the going annual salary for a senior developer in Bulgaria (Eastern Europe) is somewhere between EUR 50k - 75 EUR net, with 25-30 days of paid time off. The gross will be about 25% more (income tax is 10%, social security around 40%, but there is a cap on the salary base, so effectively it is less). For freelance senior developer, the (B2B) daily rate is in the range EUR 350 to EUR 550, depending on the technology and project complexity. Of course, there are rare examples outside of these ranges (e.g. top talent in ML, BigData etc). Leadership roles are usually at 10-20% premium.
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.
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?
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.
Until you’re over the many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year range, it works pretty well as a rule of thumb. If your company wants the cost of working in an office, they’re probably not paying high salaries to work in a rundown shack and the people making those high incomes also want better quality benefits (especially in the United States where healthcare is so expensive and cheaper plans mean more time having to argue with someone whose bonus is based on denying care).
Salary is not the same as paying a contractor. So, while salaries for senior engineers is 100k, as a contractor they might be charging 150K per year ($75/hr).
Is that 90k the "lower average"? In Ukraine? I find that very hard to believe. Even here in Czechia that would put you firmly in the top 5 %. I don't think I personally know more than 2 people who make anything like that, and one of them isn't even in IT.
Top 5% overall or top 5% of dev jobs? Former sure, latter might be not? I live in Prague, and there are definitely multiple companies that pay more than 90k to middle positions. especially if it's before taxes.
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.
It's quite simple market forces, from where I stand.
Companies in high income areas have two options for outsourcing:
1. Just go for the cheapest salary, quantity over quality style.
2. Find a replacement that has a comparable level of skill, experience and knowledge to the local talent they have or would need.
Now for (1), there is almost no floor. You can get devs for five bucks an hour. For some people, it's the only way they can make any money, so they take it.
For (2), people will gravitate towards earning 10-30 % less than a local equivalent developer. Low prices drive up demand, and since there isn't that much supply of strong candidates, that drives up their fees. At the same time, the employer pays a bit of a tax in terms of time zone, proximity and cultural differences, which introduces overhead, so it can't quite reach the local salaries. But it can get pretty close.
A lot of the outsourcing horror stories are (1). A lot of the actual success with outsourcing is, in my experience, (2).
I believe (1) is primarily responsible for these ebbs and flows you mention. The feedback loop for software development (in terms of whether it pays off economically) are _long_. That seems to force history to repeat all the time, because decision makers rarely see the consequences of their actions. The incoming generation of leadership did though. And then the generation after that didn't.
I think many companies intend to do (2) but find themselves in (1) because they try to force their assumptions about the mythical cost savings, which aren't actually there.
I've seen companies blatantly pursue the lowest possible hourly rate, kinda disregarding anything else (time zone difference, quality etc). I believe it comes from a procurement mindset (works for other areas, and probably taught in business school):
1. One $unit of $resource from supplier A is cheaper than from supplier B.
2. The price difference is sufficient to allocate a certain amount to dealing with quality issues (from lower efficiency to lawsuits).
3. If it turns out the quality issues are higher than expected, switch to supplier B.
The thing is, this doesn't work with software development. (2) has that pesky long feedback cycle. (3) typically is about equivalent to starting over from scratch.
I can raise two points to disprove this - I'm East Euro, but have worked with people from all over the globe in all kinds of companies.
First, my experience with devs at mid level companies is that the average dev ranges from competent (as in, can work within an existing framework to accomplish tasks), to incompetent (cannot do the same consistently), with there being a top 10-20% who are truly good (able to deliver complex high quality software from a blank sheet, capable of working on complex existing systems meaningfully etc.). This applies to all companies (including ones in the US).
Second, at high level companies, there's lots of European talent (usually in West Europe) - these people are as good as their US peers (by definition, and usually has been my experience), but make less than what you would take home in a mid level US company.
Mid level companies have wide ranging talent since they almost by definition pay below market for talent, and don't even enjoy the brand value draw of the top companies. These companies benefit from the fact that there is some lag in labor discovering their true market value.
>Second, at high level companies, there's lots of European talent
Lots is subjective. The problem is the scale. You can easily hire 100 great devs in London over some period of time. 10000? Maybe not. It would take you too long to pick them up.
You don't get paid for talent, or education, or responsibility, or any other reason that could be plausibly presented as fair. You get paid for friction: how easy it would be to replace you, and how much harm it would cause if a good enough replacement cannot be found. On the average, as individual circumstances vary.
There is friction in turning fresh graduates into experienced developers. There is friction in hiring people in a region where you are not operating already. There is friction in using additional middlemen. There is friction in learning to do business in a new situation or in a new culture. But the friction can be overcome – in the long term and when the scale is large enough.
In no small part because if you look at that talent you’ll notice that… they’re mostly not natives to those areas. i.e. the highly paid in San Francisco are mostly immigrants from LCOL countries. Generous immigration policies ensure it. If immigration policies do change, you might start to find tech top talent in other geos but for the most part the people they really wanted to outsource to in the first place have already moved next door.
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.
Feels a bit chicken-and-egg - if I live in, say, Brazil, and I know that there isn't a great market for good devs here, will I put in the effort to become a good dev? If I really have a passion for dev work, will I try to move or work freelance?
Not that you're implying it, but I think it's fair to point out that people in ex. Brazil aren't worse at dev work, just that there is probably lower incentive to be good.
My point was, there ARE opportunities in Brazil that don't involve working in a slave outsourcing factory. Even individual remote dev contracts are not always the top tier of talent. The real good talent working remotely from Brazil is probably working for startups in silicon valley not your average mid US company.
Just as you compete for top talent locally you also compete for top talent globally when hiring remote.
I live in Sweden now and have dealt with a lot of Swedish companies over the years. It is hard to explain this to the locals because they see Sweden as a big tech hub where all the talent is at, but the scale of things in Brazil is _crazy_. I worked in a telecom project where this one single company had more active (paying) SIM cards than the population of Sweden several times over.
Just because it is a poorer country doesn't mean it is easier engineering, if anything the engineering is harder.
I think GP's point was that the best devs don't stay in Brazil, even if some can pay decently for Brazil. Whether those people not staying in Brazil are signifigant is only guesswork.
> 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.
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.
Everyone wants to say it will get better based on what happened in 2000 and 2008. I was around both times.
In 2000, none of the ideas ended up being bad. They were just too early and internet wasn’t ubiquitous.
But even then, if you were working as a standard enterprise dev for a profitable business - banks, insurance, companies, etc, outside of Silicon Valley, jobs were plentiful. I was a Windows dev living in Atlanta with 4 years of experience and had no issue of getting offers.
Things improved when internet became ubiquitous both at home and in their pockets with smart phones and the App Store by 2012.
On the B2B side, there was the rise of SaaS.
There will be no next doubling of jobs to absorb all of the people looking. Every application gets literally 1000 applications within the first day of posting.
It’s going to take at least a decade for the supply/demand to balance out.
This analysis is more of an excuse for speculation about applications of LLMs in software engineering, than an analysis of the factors leading up to this.
The headline doesn’t tell the whole story. SE openings precipitated in the year that followed the peak. Compared to that massive decline, openings over the last year have been relatively stable but on a downward trajectory.
Most of us are personally familiar with the reasons for this. Companies overhired during COVID and the demand for engineers was met by higher CS enrolment and to smaller extent, boot camps. But then remote work made companies realize that they could hire all over the world. Right now Netflix is only hiring engineers in Poland and other Faang companies are mostly interested in South America.
Focus on AI shifts investment in technology into that field, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Likewise management expects that AI will drive up engineer productivity.
There has been no significant decline in software engineering positions since the advent of AI as all the factors I mentioned above still apply in the post 2023 period.
I apologize, and I'm embarrassed, I thoughtlessly repeated what my friend from Netflix said in a casual conversation. He specified that his larger org at netflix is hiring only engineers from Poland. That said, I believe the point I made stands.
>The headline doesn’t tell the whole story. SE openings precipitated in the year that followed the peak. Compared to that massive decline, openings over the last year have been relatively stable but on a downward trajectory
When was the peak of AI? My impression was around 2022, and the crash started the next year.
I don't think AI is the cause so much as projected economic headwinds and S174. But I can see AI being indirectly responsible. Not because of replacing jobs, but because Companies want to redirect dev funds saved into powering AI servers. I believe Meta said as much at the beginning of 2025 (or maybe it was Google?)
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...
The US is the largest software dev market by far, and these changes ripple out. Outsourced dev costs still get the same tax treatment for US companies, so while reducing the costs reduces the problem for US companies, it doesn’t change that the problem exists.
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.
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.
Not going to argue back and forth - as I don’t have any knowledge on those deals.
But I don’t believe they get 10% more like 2-3% and most likely they pay back any amount as soon as their stock value goes up to cover the loan not to accumulate compounding.
They have deals normal people don’t get. For banks those are free and sure money deals as well.
The feds interest rate is still 4.5% right now. And a lot of companies are preparing for a headwind (which also means very rich people don't want to put assets up). Despite people trying to pretend otherwise, we're not in a very flowing economy right now.
But yes. If you're very ambitious and very rich, you can probably find a decent loan for your idea. This odd economic situation is ripe for uncontested disruption, but has an extremely high cost of entry (hence, being unconstested).
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
> 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
This feels right to me: the common trend between the dotcom bubble, mortgage bubble, tech bubble, blockchain bubble, and now the AI bubble has been big investors very high returns to make up for previous losses, like a gambler trying to win back, and it’s destroyed a lot of companies which had an idea which could have been a sustainable medium-size business but were funded and tried to grow as the next Google/Facebook without apparent recognition of how unusual advertising is for the ability to grow profits rapidly without scaling costs at the same rate.
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.
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.
It's more likely that it became popular to use in commentary because this chart from FRED (both the software dev postings on Indeed chart, and, in the comments, the comparison to the overall job postings on Indeed chart) got attention on a certain orange-tinted site that is popular with people in and around and commenting on the software development field a few months ago.
Yet there is no let up in diluting software engineering labor pool with thousands of H1Bs amidst the already distressed labor market from American job seeker perspective.
If H1Bs were so destructive to the software industry, why would the software industry, which has the highest prevalence of H1Bs, be the industry with the highest growth in salaries for basically the past 2 decades?
Also, the idea that eliminating H1Bs will bring more jobs makes absolutely no sense.
If a company is asked to eliminate all their H1B positions, what do you think is more likely:
- they hire a completely new employee in the U.S. at a similar, or if the critics are right and H1B is suppressing salaries, higher salary, or
- they hire the exact same person but now with that person back in their home country and pay them a tiny fraction of what they were paying them in the U.S.?
There may be a handful of jobs where the employee needs to be in the U.S. where sure, a few more Americans will get jobs. But the overwhelming jobs will simply move abroad with the H1 employee, and along with that a whole bunch of dollars that were being spent within the U.S. and was paying US taxes will move abroad and be spent abroad and pay taxes abroad.
I believe the American public’s appetite to disincentivize and tax the American companies that ship jobs overseas while simultaneously benefiting from the protection, infrastructure and US government contracts directly or indirectly will only increase in the coming years.
Easy to tax physical goods, hard to tax "underpaid" service work.
Is DeepMind an American company? It's owned by Google, but it was founded in, and is still HQed in, the UK, but has offices worldwide. How much appetite do you recon Canada, France, Germany, and the UK have for America's trillion-dollar-club at this point?
Now sure, you could demand any corporations selling in the US, even if not based there, hand over payroll etc. documents and then tax them at whatever the multiplier is to go from that country's salary to US salaries… if you don't mind that means some countries are banned by existing privacy laws from doing business with you, or that even this is easily gamed, or that American exceptionalism is increasingly overstaying its welcome.
Sounds like maybe you’re from Europe? And have a frustration with foreign companies in the US. This further demonstrates that globalism as we’ve seen it with “free” trade is largely coming to a new era with strong headwinds, and it’s not just the US citizenry that wants that. The people that are pro H1B in the US, even given that more than half of the positions hired are foreign-born, are ignoring a stark reality that this will not likely continue. It’s gonna be a rocky road.
That description is painting me with primary colours, but yes, I'm from Europe. Chose to stay in the EU, post-Brexit, rather than stay in the UK or to move to the US.
I think that the internet is incompatible with late 20th century models of national sovereignty. Globalisation itself isn't the problem, it's that services performed across an international border have a very messy relationship with legal obligations, everything from surveillance obligations[0] to minimum wage laws. This will get worse when robots can be tele-operated from a different nation, blurring the division between service and non-service (primary, raw materials; secondary, manufacturing) labour.
I don't think we here in Europe would mind so much, if Big Tech obeyed local laws (even when I disapprove of the law[0], I know I can't pick and choose which laws I follow, every jurisdiction's laws are a package deal). But Big Tech seems to treat European fines for non-compliance as if they were taxes, even though a tax on an import is called a tariff and the US is fine with those.
Interesting points. Totally agree with you on big tech companies simply treating fines as cost of business instead of operating in good faith within the confines of the legal requirements in the countries where they do business.
The EU is fine with tariffs as well though. It’s not a US only activity. However, the US has a history of tariffs as income tax wasn’t even in existence until early 20th century. I’m interested to see what impacts tariffs are going to play as it does seem a reasonable tool for sovereign nations to utilize. Otherwise, how else do they prevent the hollowing out of their working class in countries that do not provide the cheapest labor? Libertarian types will simply say pick up your bootstraps and compete, but that’s not realistic against labor that is a fraction of their cost. Protectionist measures may be the only logical response for the working class to be protected.
> The EU is fine with tariffs as well though. It’s not a US only activity.
Indeed, I don't wish to imply otherwise, I'm just saying it's a bit hypocritical to complain about something being taxed when also implementing a tax of the kind being complained about — even if the thing being complained about is actually a fine rather than a tax, complaining about it as if it were a tax makes it hypocritical. (Also, it's not like the US doesn't fine businesses for not following laws).
I, too, have no idea how this will play out. Even just from what you say, and ignoring the potential bull-in-the-China-shop that would be the economic impact of AI performing useful cognitive labour at below-subsistence-farming wages.
“why would the software industry, which has the highest prevalence of H1Bs, be the industry with the highest growth in salaries for basically the past 2 decades?”
Maybe because that’s just not true? Salaries have generally been stagnant over the last 20 years in real terms for most in the industry.
Most developers do not work at FAANG positions, and even those positions are only found in the extremely high cost of living areas like Silicon Valley.
Companies are always free to hire people from wherever they want. However, it could be foreseeable that “American” companies that are largely overseas, maybe at a disadvantage when it comes to taxes or other benefits conferred by the US government. Such companies may find that their products are subject to tariffs when trying to sell those products back in the United States or other active measures to prevent offshore positions. There is a risk as section 147 changes already has shown.
"Programming languages are simpler than human languages"
this is a very stupid thing to say. The formal structure of a language doesn't easily determine the complexity of what can be done with a language, nor is it a way of predicting the difficulty of expressing an equivalent idea vs other formal or natural languages.
Those occur when you've made an unambiguous statement that has no valid semantics. ("God should get a promotion."†) They don't occur when you've made an ambiguous statement ("We saw her duck.") As I noted above, it isn't possible to make an ambiguous statement.
† I'm aware that that isn't an unambiguous statement. This is for the simple reason that it's next to impossible to make an unambiguous statement in a natural language; that's why legal documents use so many clauses. I'm relying on the reader here to realize which meaning I had in mind, which is the way all natural language works.
The case "God should get a promotion" if I understand correctly, is soundness (as in Rust) issue, with equivalent in C: `int increment(int x) { x + 1; }` - sound, not valid.
The case with legal documents is equivalent in C sequence points for comma operator with something like `print(i++, i++)`. Imagine Boeing documentation with text "In case of blinking indicator press button A and stop immediately". Button "A and stop"? Button "stop" after button A? Authors can hope that a sane human can resolve this ambiguity, but if it is done by compiler/interpreter/robot, it can have an avalanche effect.
Speaking specifically about the "language" part - while there is a formal specification for C++, many pieces are implementation dependent. Then there is actual undefined behavior that is part of a specification.
Actual programs implemented in a language can be ambiguous. consider multi-threaded programs where data arrive at different times in different threads, leading to different outcomes. Or just pure ambiguity of intent. Or a program which incorporates undefined behavior intentionally.
Formal and natural languages may overlap in some ways but it is ridiculous to compare them in this way and claim a probabilistic model is better at the formal language. Translation tasks are an example where LLMs perform extremely well, I would argue much better than in programming. Should I make the claim it's because of some intrinsic attribute of natural language vs formal language?
Are we still going through backlog at same rate but with fewer engineers with AI? Can we expect an "induced demand" for more nice to have features which require more engineers?
Assuming that AI coding is already helping the average dev with shipping more.
I don't think this means what they think it means: a _lot_ of job postings get filled before they get counted. Think about it, there have been a lot of layoffs. Many of these people have friends that can refer them to jobs before they are posted.
A better graph would be of the number of people who self-report as being employed as software developer. I doubt that would show the same decline--there have not been many stories of people abandoning the profession because they could not find employment...
278 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 262 ms ] threadAnd what happens if you do?
Some hallucinations stay in codebases longer than others! If there were zero hallucinations there would really be no novel output. Some hallucinations are useful and some are not.
Facts don't really play a part there, if a response is factual its only a sign that the training set largely agreed on the facts (meaning the correlation of token sequence was high).
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.
Take a look at this, the previous administration hired hundreds of thousands of gov workers to inflate the employment numbers.
https://x.com/VladTheInflator/status/1891600635167981904
EDIT: here you go, just looking at Federal employees [2]:
Jan 2021: 2.89 million
Jan 2025: 3.02 million
The Federal government added ~130k employees over the four years that Biden was in office, an increase of about 4.4%.
During that exact same period, all private employment went from 121 million to 135 million, an increase of about 11%. So Federal employment grew slower under Biden than private employment did. [3]
Sources:
1. Total government employees: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USGOVT
2. Total Federal government employees: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001
3. Total private employment: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRIV
source: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/15/nx-s1-5298182/trumps-probatio...
If this has general ghost jobs caught in the crossfire too, that'd be amazing. Just don't waste my time on something you already know doesn't exist.
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.
I thought it was the MySpace of job boards.
Edit: I am an idiot, there is a mention. Or possibly the article was edited and I'm not an idiot, it does say there was an edit recently.
I originally didn’t mention this because S174 impacts the US and US-HQ’d companies. In this data other countries like Germany, UK, France all see a similar drop. Also, S174 impact likely really started from early 2024, when companies impacted had to pay high taxes and realized the change is here to stay with no end in sight. Doesn’t explain the drop since 2022.
Updated the article to make this clear though. It was not in the original version - thanks for the note!
[1] https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/section-174/
It's rapidly looking like nerding out while pining for the old days where engineering knowledge and education was valuable is maladaptive. The sunk cost fallacy can be real.
It's best to start hedging and learning other skills. Or focus on making as much money as possible ASAP so you have some financial safety net to fall back to as AI and Trump/Musk and offshoring has increased in recent years. All of us need an escape plan ready.
I don't mean to spread FUD. Just hedge please. I assume I have at most a decade of tech career left in the best case. A couple years in the worst case.
The Internet is basically a young, small portion of writings in english, as far as I can tell.
Even if everything being done with LLMs is useless, if you can do the same amount of useless with half as many developers, it's bad news for us.
Later moved to Oracle / SQL Server / C# / microservices / CICD etc etc) but hell, that was my whole career 2002-2012 across various companies. Making cool tools for smart people, things the accelerated the company in smal;l but measurable ways, that unbeknownst to me would absolutely have directly resulted in a team of 3-5 being reduced to a team of 1, or a team of 1 not being expanded to be a team of 3-5.
The same will happen (IS happening) with LLM's.
"No doubt, in turning them out of this “temporal” world, the machinery caused them no more than “a temporary inconvenience.” For the rest, since machinery is continually seizing upon new fields of production, its temporary effect is really permanent. Hence, the character of independence and estrangement which the capitalist mode of production as a whole gives to the instruments of labour and to the product, as against the workman, is developed by means of machinery into a thorough antagonism. Therefore, it is with the advent of machinery, that the workman for the first time brutally revolts against the instruments of labour."
soon we'll see if the old man was wrong and short-sighted, or if what has happened since the internet revolution is just an abnormal period in centuries
I’m not sure that’s the case even if in retrospect we can clearly argue this
In 1998, Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel memorial prize in economic sciences, infamously predicted that “the growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s” [1] and even though that turned out to be spectacularly wrong it shows the attitude in the early days wasn’t one of absolute certainty.
And certainly the current AI boom is most visibly known for LLMs but there is a lot more happening beyond chatbots.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-eff...
Sears famously laughing at online orders is a great example. They already had the mail over market owned, and already had the distribution, sourcing, and utterly dominant brand recognition in that space. People used to order homes from Sears!
They just needed the online catalog. But the CEO was a psychopath Randian who thought the internet was a fad and now Amazon runs things.
Same with Toy R Us, and Radioshack, which did a lot of mail order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yX9D3h2F_0
Ironic that Sears back in the day got started with mail order.
Seems like bad management is a cancer on a lot of organizations. Their size protects them for a while, but eventually they get outcompeted.
It certainly feels this way if your only perspective on the tech industry comes from headlines and social media.
Step outside of the doomerism whirlwind that is internet headlines and it's a very different story. There are a lot of companies doing great things and delivering products that people use, but they don't make for catchy headlines. So you don't hear about them.
The automation industry with physical products interaction is where my labor shortage lives.
I will be requesting support this year. Software development is about solutions and all industry pivots have a learning curve.
This also means it is a great time to start a small, profitable business because labor is undervalued.
The final phase of this is where Americans start moving to some hut in the Congo to survive off the market wages offered when the supply side of the supply/demand curve blows up.
Just think how much the investor narrative has shifted from early 2020s. Back then everyone talked about the business areas they were expanding into using tech. Now, investors get hyped up when you do the same thing, at lower cost. Less about growth, more about predictability. Which makes sense. Do investors view Amazon as a high tech company (as in 2020 and before) or a predictable business? dare I say utility?
It explains layoffs, forced RTO, etc. They simply don’t care if even their best leave. Their MBA executives know optimization/keeping the lights on - and less about innovation.
So it's a bit of both extremes at once.
Few, maybe 15%, of those people really seemed like they could program. Everybody else talked about their favorite tech stack and their opinions on code styles. It kind of felt like code masturbation. A shrinking job market is not surprising.
It's happening, and happening fast.
I used to work at a SF startup before the FAANG about 4-5 years back. All the engineers there have unfortunately been replaced with those in LATAM too. LATAM engineers were making like $80-$90K in USD, which is apparently really good money there, whereas US engineer asked for base pay twice that. So it seems like a win-win deal for the cofounders and LATAM engineers.
Just not so great for those of us in the US.
Whether working collaboratively in an office was beneficial or not, employers certainly believed it to be so. They believed it so much that employers, pre pandemic, were willing to hire employees a single time zone away from SF, and then pay them a significant one time amount along with a much higher annual salary to relocate them to SF.
This belief in higher productivity when teams were geographically collocated was the entire basis for which employers were willing to pay American employees several multiples of what they would pay employees abroad.
But the same employees who were benefiting from this decided they didn’t want to keep that advantage anymore.
And now since WFH has become the norm in the US, employers are realizing there’s no need to pay to keep employees in the U.S. and outsourcing to significantly cheaper locations instead.
It’s also much harder in general to communicate less formally and form deep relationships.
For execs and managers, this can be a big problem.
If it isn’t possible to do it the ‘old way’, remote work can and does work (albeit in different ways and with different constraints). But if doing remote work, why not do it somewhere else?
If you're totally disconnected from the work, sure. But for someone actually paying, it shouldn't be that hard to see whether the list of priorities for this month is actually getting finished or not.
Outsourcing manufacturing had the same problem - people thought they could send drawings to China, and with some straightforward checks, could get what they wanted cheaper. That was not at all the case, however, and there is a LOT of QA, additional checks, additional data leakage and competitive risks, etc.
For instance, if in the US people might actually follow the law around things like NDAs and non-competes most of the time, what about the jurisdiction you’re outsourcing too? How would you even know? How would you enforce consequences? How about data security?
Sounds more like a personal problem than a technical one. Besides, if it was actually enough of an issue there wouldn't be so much outsourcing. I just see it as more smokescreens to cut costs.
It saves a ton of money if you can get people to buy the end product (costs are often literally 1/2 or 1/10th). Profit is a major motivator.
Only if you are thinking like a McDonald’s shift manager. Measuring software developers by time-in-seat is tacitly acknowledging that your managers aren’t doing their jobs up to the C-suite.
“Whoa we can do this cheaper in another country???” is not a new phenomenon. Companies have been trying to do this for literally decades at this point. The reason so many jobs still exist in the US is because it doesn’t end up working that well. I’m not _that_ old and I was around at IBM for two separate rounds of “outsource-it-to-India-no-wait-bring-it-back” and IBM was and still is very keen to ship everything overseas.
I’m not saying it won’t eventually stick, but I think it’s important to dispel this notion that WFH made everyone have this sudden epiphany that US workers aren’t necessary anymore. It’s been going on for ages.
Right now (and back then), primary focus was on cost. Got to juice those margins somehow, and it isn’t going to happen by opening new markets (probably!).
When outsourcing is less envogue, it’s usually because there is some big growth opportunity and they are trying to get things moving as fast as possible. That tends to require higher end (but more expensive!) staff working in closer communication with management/execs.
It’s the difference between trying to improve margins on an existing product, and trying to grow the top end of a new product.
5 years won't change that lol. tata is still going to suck, the difference is now there is TCS in LATAM. same for cap gemini, cognizant, hcl, etc.
If you look at the table of salaries of a big union [1], you can multiply that number by about 13.5 to get the annual salary. Can vary a little %, but a good estimation.
The salaries in the EU stagnated in the last years, whereas in USA they were moving.
[1] https://www.igmetall.de/download/20240809_Metall_Elektroindu...
For 50k net per year, or ~4k per month, in most other countries you need to earn ~80k EUR per year (gross). In Bulgaria, you need ~57k EUR.
For 75k net per year, or ~6k per month, in most other countries you need to earn ~130k EUR per year (gross). In Bulgaria, you need ~85k EUR.
Go figure, these are really large differences and that very well might be the reason why we see a lot of big companies there. Tax is unusually low.
p.s. And no, i do not see a change here - all is still dead - am looking since september
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.
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?
More specifically:
To be in the top 10% of earners in the USA, you need an annual income of at least $148,812
To be in the top 5% of earners in the USA, you need an annual income of at least $352,773
The median salary in the USA is approximately $59,428 per year
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.
Companies in high income areas have two options for outsourcing:
1. Just go for the cheapest salary, quantity over quality style.
2. Find a replacement that has a comparable level of skill, experience and knowledge to the local talent they have or would need.
Now for (1), there is almost no floor. You can get devs for five bucks an hour. For some people, it's the only way they can make any money, so they take it.
For (2), people will gravitate towards earning 10-30 % less than a local equivalent developer. Low prices drive up demand, and since there isn't that much supply of strong candidates, that drives up their fees. At the same time, the employer pays a bit of a tax in terms of time zone, proximity and cultural differences, which introduces overhead, so it can't quite reach the local salaries. But it can get pretty close.
A lot of the outsourcing horror stories are (1). A lot of the actual success with outsourcing is, in my experience, (2).
I believe (1) is primarily responsible for these ebbs and flows you mention. The feedback loop for software development (in terms of whether it pays off economically) are _long_. That seems to force history to repeat all the time, because decision makers rarely see the consequences of their actions. The incoming generation of leadership did though. And then the generation after that didn't.
1. One $unit of $resource from supplier A is cheaper than from supplier B.
2. The price difference is sufficient to allocate a certain amount to dealing with quality issues (from lower efficiency to lawsuits).
3. If it turns out the quality issues are higher than expected, switch to supplier B.
The thing is, this doesn't work with software development. (2) has that pesky long feedback cycle. (3) typically is about equivalent to starting over from scratch.
First, my experience with devs at mid level companies is that the average dev ranges from competent (as in, can work within an existing framework to accomplish tasks), to incompetent (cannot do the same consistently), with there being a top 10-20% who are truly good (able to deliver complex high quality software from a blank sheet, capable of working on complex existing systems meaningfully etc.). This applies to all companies (including ones in the US).
Second, at high level companies, there's lots of European talent (usually in West Europe) - these people are as good as their US peers (by definition, and usually has been my experience), but make less than what you would take home in a mid level US company.
>Second, at high level companies, there's lots of European talent
Lots is subjective. The problem is the scale. You can easily hire 100 great devs in London over some period of time. 10000? Maybe not. It would take you too long to pick them up.
There is friction in turning fresh graduates into experienced developers. There is friction in hiring people in a region where you are not operating already. There is friction in using additional middlemen. There is friction in learning to do business in a new situation or in a new culture. But the friction can be overcome – in the long term and when the scale is large enough.
In no small part because if you look at that talent you’ll notice that… they’re mostly not natives to those areas. i.e. the highly paid in San Francisco are mostly immigrants from LCOL countries. Generous immigration policies ensure it. If immigration policies do change, you might start to find tech top talent in other geos but for the most part the people they really wanted to outsource to in the first place have already moved next door.
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.
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.
Not that you're implying it, but I think it's fair to point out that people in ex. Brazil aren't worse at dev work, just that there is probably lower incentive to be good.
Just as you compete for top talent locally you also compete for top talent globally when hiring remote.
I live in Sweden now and have dealt with a lot of Swedish companies over the years. It is hard to explain this to the locals because they see Sweden as a big tech hub where all the talent is at, but the scale of things in Brazil is _crazy_. I worked in a telecom project where this one single company had more active (paying) SIM cards than the population of Sweden several times over.
Just because it is a poorer country doesn't mean it is easier engineering, if anything the engineering is harder.
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.
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.
Outsourcing is a cost savings measure. It's a symptom, not the cause of the issue
In 2000, none of the ideas ended up being bad. They were just too early and internet wasn’t ubiquitous.
But even then, if you were working as a standard enterprise dev for a profitable business - banks, insurance, companies, etc, outside of Silicon Valley, jobs were plentiful. I was a Windows dev living in Atlanta with 4 years of experience and had no issue of getting offers.
Things improved when internet became ubiquitous both at home and in their pockets with smart phones and the App Store by 2012.
On the B2B side, there was the rise of SaaS.
There will be no next doubling of jobs to absorb all of the people looking. Every application gets literally 1000 applications within the first day of posting.
It’s going to take at least a decade for the supply/demand to balance out.
No Section 174 is not to blame either.
- Offshoring, nearshoring
- Generative AI
- Coding camps
- Better and more open source libraries. More high level open source libraries
- Low code and no code
- Easier to use technology, more documentation
The headline doesn’t tell the whole story. SE openings precipitated in the year that followed the peak. Compared to that massive decline, openings over the last year have been relatively stable but on a downward trajectory.
Most of us are personally familiar with the reasons for this. Companies overhired during COVID and the demand for engineers was met by higher CS enrolment and to smaller extent, boot camps. But then remote work made companies realize that they could hire all over the world. Right now Netflix is only hiring engineers in Poland and other Faang companies are mostly interested in South America.
Focus on AI shifts investment in technology into that field, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Likewise management expects that AI will drive up engineer productivity.
There has been no significant decline in software engineering positions since the advent of AI as all the factors I mentioned above still apply in the post 2023 period.
This is patently false. Source: I’m an engineering manager at Netflix who’s hiring in the US and whose peers are all doing the same.
When was the peak of AI? My impression was around 2022, and the crash started the next year.
I don't think AI is the cause so much as projected economic headwinds and S174. But I can see AI being indirectly responsible. Not because of replacing jobs, but because Companies want to redirect dev funds saved into powering AI servers. I believe Meta said as much at the beginning of 2025 (or maybe it was Google?)
FRED is just a descriptive tool: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/business/economy/fred-eco...
That interest rates started to rise right when the tax changes to make it less advantageous happened? 1-2 punch.
This impacts all other markets.
You are not getting rich by throwing $50k to trash.
But I don’t believe they get 10% more like 2-3% and most likely they pay back any amount as soon as their stock value goes up to cover the loan not to accumulate compounding.
They have deals normal people don’t get. For banks those are free and sure money deals as well.
A reasonably rich person with good credit is paying nowhere near that.
And a very rich person with great credit and who will put their assets up as collateral is paying low single digits in interest, if even.
But yes. If you're very ambitious and very rich, you can probably find a decent loan for your idea. This odd economic situation is ripe for uncontested disruption, but has an extremely high cost of entry (hence, being unconstested).
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
This feels right to me: the common trend between the dotcom bubble, mortgage bubble, tech bubble, blockchain bubble, and now the AI bubble has been big investors very high returns to make up for previous losses, like a gambler trying to win back, and it’s destroyed a lot of companies which had an idea which could have been a sustainable medium-size business but were funded and tried to grow as the next Google/Facebook without apparent recognition of how unusual advertising is for the ability to grow profits rapidly without scaling costs at the same rate.
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.
Where is there any indication that FRED wants this?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41409006
If H1Bs were so destructive to the software industry, why would the software industry, which has the highest prevalence of H1Bs, be the industry with the highest growth in salaries for basically the past 2 decades?
Also, the idea that eliminating H1Bs will bring more jobs makes absolutely no sense.
If a company is asked to eliminate all their H1B positions, what do you think is more likely:
- they hire a completely new employee in the U.S. at a similar, or if the critics are right and H1B is suppressing salaries, higher salary, or
- they hire the exact same person but now with that person back in their home country and pay them a tiny fraction of what they were paying them in the U.S.?
There may be a handful of jobs where the employee needs to be in the U.S. where sure, a few more Americans will get jobs. But the overwhelming jobs will simply move abroad with the H1 employee, and along with that a whole bunch of dollars that were being spent within the U.S. and was paying US taxes will move abroad and be spent abroad and pay taxes abroad.
Is DeepMind an American company? It's owned by Google, but it was founded in, and is still HQed in, the UK, but has offices worldwide. How much appetite do you recon Canada, France, Germany, and the UK have for America's trillion-dollar-club at this point?
Now sure, you could demand any corporations selling in the US, even if not based there, hand over payroll etc. documents and then tax them at whatever the multiplier is to go from that country's salary to US salaries… if you don't mind that means some countries are banned by existing privacy laws from doing business with you, or that even this is easily gamed, or that American exceptionalism is increasingly overstaying its welcome.
I think that the internet is incompatible with late 20th century models of national sovereignty. Globalisation itself isn't the problem, it's that services performed across an international border have a very messy relationship with legal obligations, everything from surveillance obligations[0] to minimum wage laws. This will get worse when robots can be tele-operated from a different nation, blurring the division between service and non-service (primary, raw materials; secondary, manufacturing) labour.
I don't think we here in Europe would mind so much, if Big Tech obeyed local laws (even when I disapprove of the law[0], I know I can't pick and choose which laws I follow, every jurisdiction's laws are a package deal). But Big Tech seems to treat European fines for non-compliance as if they were taxes, even though a tax on an import is called a tariff and the US is fine with those.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016, one of two reasons I left the UK
but also https://www.theverge.com/news/608145/apple-uk-icloud-encrypt...
and note that Apple disclosing they've received such an order is itself an offence.
The EU is fine with tariffs as well though. It’s not a US only activity. However, the US has a history of tariffs as income tax wasn’t even in existence until early 20th century. I’m interested to see what impacts tariffs are going to play as it does seem a reasonable tool for sovereign nations to utilize. Otherwise, how else do they prevent the hollowing out of their working class in countries that do not provide the cheapest labor? Libertarian types will simply say pick up your bootstraps and compete, but that’s not realistic against labor that is a fraction of their cost. Protectionist measures may be the only logical response for the working class to be protected.
Indeed, I don't wish to imply otherwise, I'm just saying it's a bit hypocritical to complain about something being taxed when also implementing a tax of the kind being complained about — even if the thing being complained about is actually a fine rather than a tax, complaining about it as if it were a tax makes it hypocritical. (Also, it's not like the US doesn't fine businesses for not following laws).
I, too, have no idea how this will play out. Even just from what you say, and ignoring the potential bull-in-the-China-shop that would be the economic impact of AI performing useful cognitive labour at below-subsistence-farming wages.
Maybe because that’s just not true? Salaries have generally been stagnant over the last 20 years in real terms for most in the industry.
Most developers do not work at FAANG positions, and even those positions are only found in the extremely high cost of living areas like Silicon Valley.
Companies are always free to hire people from wherever they want. However, it could be foreseeable that “American” companies that are largely overseas, maybe at a disadvantage when it comes to taxes or other benefits conferred by the US government. Such companies may find that their products are subject to tariffs when trying to sell those products back in the United States or other active measures to prevent offshore positions. There is a risk as section 147 changes already has shown.
Today: "I know this pain! It's real."
Rough out there.
this is a very stupid thing to say. The formal structure of a language doesn't easily determine the complexity of what can be done with a language, nor is it a way of predicting the difficulty of expressing an equivalent idea vs other formal or natural languages.
Well, it does have the virtue of being straightforwardly true. For example, programming languages can't be ambiguous.
Yes, in C++ we call it "unspecified behavior" and "undefined behavior"
† I'm aware that that isn't an unambiguous statement. This is for the simple reason that it's next to impossible to make an unambiguous statement in a natural language; that's why legal documents use so many clauses. I'm relying on the reader here to realize which meaning I had in mind, which is the way all natural language works.
The case with legal documents is equivalent in C sequence points for comma operator with something like `print(i++, i++)`. Imagine Boeing documentation with text "In case of blinking indicator press button A and stop immediately". Button "A and stop"? Button "stop" after button A? Authors can hope that a sane human can resolve this ambiguity, but if it is done by compiler/interpreter/robot, it can have an avalanche effect.
This is "straightforwardly" false.
Speaking specifically about the "language" part - while there is a formal specification for C++, many pieces are implementation dependent. Then there is actual undefined behavior that is part of a specification.
Actual programs implemented in a language can be ambiguous. consider multi-threaded programs where data arrive at different times in different threads, leading to different outcomes. Or just pure ambiguity of intent. Or a program which incorporates undefined behavior intentionally.
Formal and natural languages may overlap in some ways but it is ridiculous to compare them in this way and claim a probabilistic model is better at the formal language. Translation tasks are an example where LLMs perform extremely well, I would argue much better than in programming. Should I make the claim it's because of some intrinsic attribute of natural language vs formal language?
Assuming that AI coding is already helping the average dev with shipping more.
A better graph would be of the number of people who self-report as being employed as software developer. I doubt that would show the same decline--there have not been many stories of people abandoning the profession because they could not find employment...