In 2024, 21% of all bachelor's degrees awarded were Computer Science from University of Maryland College Park.
It was 3% in 2011.
I don't agree with the article that AI is wrecking job prospects. I see it is as companies are just now trending towards running leaner vs hiring every good engineer available during ZIRP.
Nonetheless, it's gotta be tough out there for new grads.
This could be the next iteration of stealing talent to prevent others from owning the market. An actually intelligent investor could dominate by bucking the trend and hire lots of smart, eager junior candidates.
When other tech companies realize GenAI will never produce what they want, there will be a rush to re-hire developers.
Top talent all started as junior talent. Grab that pool so nobody else will have it.
On a related note, we had another popular thread in HN earlier this week - (AWS CEO says using AI to replace junior staff is 'Dumbest thing I've ever heard' ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44972151 which is quite the opposite of this original post.
What's your argument supporting this? Ten years ago GenAI couldn't produce two coherent sentences. We've come a long way, what makes you think it won't go further?
That is what my company does except we basically hire out of high school. After the founders, 100% of our employees (including myself) were hired directly as high school interns, kept for years during college, and got offers after graduation.
I wrote about this a bit. I wish we could hire more. I am kind of shocked how few companies do it. There are a LOT of smart kids who would love a summer programming job.
The issue with hiring many juniors is, when there is another dev boom, all the juniors that were hired, now mids or seniors, are going to jump ship to whoever is going to pay them the most.
So, the company can either grow talent and then pay them market rate or hire at market rates from other companies that grew them. Hiring juniors, while good for the industry in the long run, doesn't really benefit an individual company.
It is game theory and it is still why senior developers make a lot of money despite there being an oversupply of juniors.
> This could be the next iteration of stealing talent to prevent others from owning the market. An actually intelligent investor could dominate by bucking the trend and hire lots of smart, eager junior candidates.
First, they'd have to identify them, which the interview process at most companies is terrible at.
How much of the glut of new compsci/sweng young people is the result of real market demands, vs social media personalities creating the appearance of a demand?
My observation is that, between 2019 and 2023, there were many creators shilling this, and probably quite good livings made off views and clicks. Could social media have amplified this, “fakely”?
How many people are just assuming the study is true or false based on what you already think is the case?
Better instead to use our collective brain power for something more productive. Such as digging into the various possible causal factors and understanding if the paper properly addresses and disentangles them.
computer job market is a huge misallocation of skills and resources, so no it's not that simple.
Given how much tech debt/backlog there is, there should be enough work for everyone, just paid less.
The fact that it isn't so just shows that there are bottlenecks elsewhere - HR, companies stuck in office only mode (so there's a high floor on salaries).
Currently all I see is a mix of very highly paid do it all types with rather lowly paid outsourced talent but no sensible middle and of course no way to realistically learn on the job - the bar to get in is very high.
"While anecdotal evidence has emerged showing AI's effects on certain professions, such as software coding, there has been little harder evidence that the technology was significantly weighing on the labor market."
Anecdotal evidence accompanied by repeated wild speculation about _other_ occupations, including ones with educational and certification requirements
"The Stanford economists first looked at areas where AI can automate many of the tasks workers perform, and therefore potentially replace them. Those include jobs such as software developers, receptionists, translators and customer service representatives."
Generally, none of those require professional certification or even a college degree; they are "unregulated"
"Head counts among customer service representatives a category that, unlike software development, generally doesn't require a college education followed a similar pattern."
The author assumes that software development requires a college degree
NB. Even if it is common to have one this is not the same as a legal requirement
AI has also introduced an extra cost for the self employed, in the form of ai fee charged for AI optimisation "GAIO",on top of seo fee's on top of hosting and development costs, which can easily be more than 5% of gross for a small business starting out.
> While we find employment declines for young workers
in occupations where AI primarily automates work, we find employment growth in occupations
in which AI use is most augmentative.
Maybe there is some hope if they can't fully automate the job with AI.
I'd love for someone who has read more of the background studies to comment on how Occupational AI Exposure is being measured. The methodology sounds reasonable but I don't know anything about how they're actually labeling tasks and how reliable that process is.
I have been thinking. Maybe there is just less demand for software? Or at least less willingness to invest in it. Thus less jobs. And reasons for this is varied. Whole AI is just coincidental.
I don’t know if it’s that simple. The 1800s to mid 1900s were rife with labor disputes and real blood was spilled before any gains were distributed down the chain, and even then labor gains only lasted a couple decades
I suspect for the already wealthy this will happen, but I think the average person will largely get handed an empty basket of promises and not much else
Farming mechanization and the loom automated so much that 97% of society used to be agrarian and now it's the opposite (only 3% are farmers in developed societies), and we are much better off despite the growing pains they had. Though, it does make me nervous how fast AI automation is hitting.
The industrial revolution provided jobs before it took them away. The tractors that took jobs from farmhands had to be built in factories with millions of people.
I think AI is going to end up more like the late 20th century automation push. It's going to hollow out whole communities.
I'm only half way through the paper but it looks like from their numbers junior level software engineering employment has returned to 2021 levels and is declining towards perhaps 2019 levels. I can't help but wonder if they have made a mistake in controlling for the hiring boom around the pandemic shift to eCommerce. It looks like they tried to eliminate factors like that, but I'm not deep enough into the study yet.
"In January 2025, 53.3 million immigrants lived in the United States – the largest number ever recorded. In the ensuing months, however, more immigrants left the country or were deported than arrived. By June, the country’s foreign-born population had shrunk by more than a million people, marking its first decline since the 1960s" [1].
all the tech companies are filled to the brim with h1b visa holders working around the clock for average pay. this has nothing to do with ai, and everything to do with importing workers that are desperate to be here, and so work like dogs.
fresh college grads are competing with foreign visa holders that have years of experience
They aren't just looking at tech jobs in the study but all job in the data set that they've coded as being AI exposed.
> We use two different approaches for measuring occupational exposure to AI. The first uses exposure
measures from Eloundou et al. (2024). Eloundou et al. (2024) estimate AI exposure by ONET
task using ChatGPT validated with human labeling. They then construct occupational exposure
measures by aggregating the task data to the 2018 SOC code level. We focus on the GPT-4 based
β exposure measures from their paper.
>The second primary approach we take uses data on generative AI usage from the Anthropic
Economic Index (Handa et al., 2025). This index reports the estimated share of queries pertaining
to each ONET task based on a sample of several million conversations with Claude, Anthropic’s
generative AI model. It then aggregates the data to the occupational level based on these task
shares. One feature of the Anthropic Economic Index is that for each task it also reports estimates
of the share of queries pertaining to that task that are “automative,” “augmentative,” or none of
the above. We use this information as an estimate of whether usage of AI for an occupation is
primarily complementary or substitutable with labor.14
Not sure why you're getting downvoted (maybe by h1bs). Big companies abusing h1b has been all over the news. Heck a Walmart manager was just arrested for taking kickbacks related to h1bs (from the country of his origin)...
Given a long enough timeframe, I think you're right. But I don't think that's a 'near future' state, but probably a 'in a few decades' state. More generally, I believe that eventually we'll reach a 'post-work society' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-work_society).
And that'll be interesting for humanity, as we derive at least some identity from the work we're doing.
When AI takes all the jobs, it better start ordering junk from Amazon, have a Costco membership, order in Tacos on Tuesday and watch Instagram reels all day on its brand new iPhone because all the jobless people won’t be able to.
The articles title combined with the much more middle of the road sub title and then a final request that you give them money to figure out what the fuck is going on is all you need to know about the journalists integrity.
babl-yc|6 months ago
In 2024, 21% of all bachelor's degrees awarded were Computer Science from University of Maryland College Park.
It was 3% in 2011.
I don't agree with the article that AI is wrecking job prospects. I see it is as companies are just now trending towards running leaner vs hiring every good engineer available during ZIRP.
Nonetheless, it's gotta be tough out there for new grads.
https://www.usmd.edu/IRIS/DataJournal/Degrees/?report=Degree...
_aavaa_|6 months ago
The current phrasing makes it sound like they’re a diploma mill producing 21% of all bachelor degrees in the country.
JumpCrisscross|6 months ago
This sounds more like overproduction of entry-level computer scientists than anything AI or hiring managers are up to.
dizlexic|6 months ago
I really believe it's just for the headlines.
ecb_penguin|6 months ago
When other tech companies realize GenAI will never produce what they want, there will be a rush to re-hire developers.
Top talent all started as junior talent. Grab that pool so nobody else will have it.
the_arun|6 months ago
gcanyon|6 months ago
What's your argument supporting this? Ten years ago GenAI couldn't produce two coherent sentences. We've come a long way, what makes you think it won't go further?
simonsarris|6 months ago
I wrote about this a bit. I wish we could hire more. I am kind of shocked how few companies do it. There are a LOT of smart kids who would love a summer programming job.
https://simonsarris.com/p/growing-software-developers
frankbreetz|6 months ago
giancarlostoro|6 months ago
First, they'd have to identify them, which the interview process at most companies is terrible at.
unknown|6 months ago
[deleted]
threecheese|6 months ago
My observation is that, between 2019 and 2023, there were many creators shilling this, and probably quite good livings made off views and clicks. Could social media have amplified this, “fakely”?
neom|6 months ago
https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/...
xpe|6 months ago
Better instead to use our collective brain power for something more productive. Such as digging into the various possible causal factors and understanding if the paper properly addresses and disentangles them.
mlinhares|6 months ago
But it makes it much nicer to say its AI that's stealing jobs to create even more hype.
darth_avocado|6 months ago
Previously discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44226145
DataDaemon|6 months ago
Temporary_31337|6 months ago
Currently all I see is a mix of very highly paid do it all types with rather lowly paid outsourced talent but no sensible middle and of course no way to realistically learn on the job - the bar to get in is very high.
delfinom|6 months ago
Fundamentals are the problem, if there's no new avenues for economic growth, then there is no way to pay down the debt.
cpursley|6 months ago
1vuio0pswjnm7|6 months ago
Anecdotal evidence accompanied by repeated wild speculation about _other_ occupations, including ones with educational and certification requirements
"The Stanford economists first looked at areas where AI can automate many of the tasks workers perform, and therefore potentially replace them. Those include jobs such as software developers, receptionists, translators and customer service representatives."
Generally, none of those require professional certification or even a college degree; they are "unregulated"
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Guidance-on...
"Head counts among customer service representatives a category that, unlike software development, generally doesn't require a college education followed a similar pattern."
The author assumes that software development requires a college degree
NB. Even if it is common to have one this is not the same as a legal requirement
https://www.nocsdegree.com/blog/companies-that-hire-programm...
metalman|6 months ago
francisofascii|6 months ago
Maybe there is some hope if they can't fully automate the job with AI.
unknown|6 months ago
[deleted]
ch4s3|6 months ago
Ekaros|6 months ago
aspenmayer|6 months ago
BurningFrog|6 months ago
So far in the Industrial Revolution, automating away jobs has been how we've getting richer and richer for centuries.
If AI automates away half of all jobs, and this holds we will - after an adjustment period - double GDP and collectively be twice as wealthy!
If that actually happens, it solves many currently "unsolvable" societal problems.
I'm pretty sure that it does, but the adjustment period might be longer than we'd wish.
no_wizard|6 months ago
I suspect for the already wealthy this will happen, but I think the average person will largely get handed an empty basket of promises and not much else
cpursley|6 months ago
JumpCrisscross|6 months ago
This is a big if!
bcrosby95|6 months ago
I think AI is going to end up more like the late 20th century automation push. It's going to hollow out whole communities.
mikojan|6 months ago
kelseyfrog|6 months ago
hyperpape|6 months ago
xpe|6 months ago
ch4s3|6 months ago
an0malous|6 months ago
commandlinefan|6 months ago
franktankbank|6 months ago
undebuggable|6 months ago
Internet gave me a more wicked explanation of this phrase, thus the internet is superior to AI.
CHB0403085482|6 months ago
https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/ai-killed-my-job-transla...
throw2432234|6 months ago
[deleted]
random9749832|6 months ago
JumpCrisscross|6 months ago
"In January 2025, 53.3 million immigrants lived in the United States – the largest number ever recorded. In the ensuing months, however, more immigrants left the country or were deported than arrived. By June, the country’s foreign-born population had shrunk by more than a million people, marking its first decline since the 1960s" [1].
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/08/21/key-findi...
mikert89|6 months ago
fresh college grads are competing with foreign visa holders that have years of experience
ch4s3|6 months ago
> We use two different approaches for measuring occupational exposure to AI. The first uses exposure measures from Eloundou et al. (2024). Eloundou et al. (2024) estimate AI exposure by ONET task using ChatGPT validated with human labeling. They then construct occupational exposure measures by aggregating the task data to the 2018 SOC code level. We focus on the GPT-4 based β exposure measures from their paper.
>The second primary approach we take uses data on generative AI usage from the Anthropic Economic Index (Handa et al., 2025). This index reports the estimated share of queries pertaining to each ONET task based on a sample of several million conversations with Claude, Anthropic’s generative AI model. It then aggregates the data to the occupational level based on these task shares. One feature of the Anthropic Economic Index is that for each task it also reports estimates of the share of queries pertaining to that task that are “automative,” “augmentative,” or none of the above. We use this information as an estimate of whether usage of AI for an occupation is primarily complementary or substitutable with labor.14
JumpCrisscross|6 months ago
Are there more H1Bs per recent college graduate today than previously?
cpursley|6 months ago
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/walmart-h-...
bobosha|6 months ago
Insanity|6 months ago
And that'll be interesting for humanity, as we derive at least some identity from the work we're doing.
darth_avocado|6 months ago
unknown|6 months ago
[deleted]
ofjcihen|6 months ago