I'm being sarcastic as to the specifics but didn't productivity go down 199k because the 200k engineer is now replaceable with a 1k subscription and will soon be fired?
Literally the output of the labor dropped to almost zero value?
Literally the output of the labor dropped to almost zero value?
This instead is a concern for newer devs. There is now no argument for bringing on the cadre of workers you’d need to do all the hand-jamming, testing, and reviewing, learning how to code in the process.
The remaining 10% of devs that I don't fire. How much software do I really need?
Anyway, I know there are some flaws in my argument, it was just a thought experiment.
Dev teams should be leaner now, with maybe at most a director as their manager up to executive level.
As for ‘how much software do I really need?’ Well, what sort of company is it? Do you have internal applications to support your orgs? If you seriously need to ask ‘how much software do I need?’ Then you should just fire yourself.
Some bean counter will want to replace the principal devs with juniors since Claude can do all the work instead…
In this case, is the change of this software from one language to another/framework to another even valuable?
Example: if I manufacture $1,000 worth of some illegal drug that will potentially turn a normal functioning adult into an addicted criminal, how shall we measure my productivity?