How many computer programmers does society actually need?

[Gustaf]

You often hear about how if people want to improve their job prospects and/or lives they ought to learn coding or IT or things like that. One of my oldest friends is a computer engineer so I'm not really as biased against the tech industry as I sometimes come across, but I still find this talking point a little confusing. Entirely leaving aside the fact that a great many people are simply slightly but noticeably less intelligent than average and that these people deserve to have safe and meaningful lives too, I've become increasingly curious as to how many computer programmers and IT people folks think society actually needs or can support.

P.S. I meant to post this in either IP or Economics; mods, feel free to move it to one of those boards.

"Need" as defined by whom? Because it sounds like you don't mean the aggregated population via their consumption choices. If you mean "how many programmers do I think people should be allowed to have based on what I think their preferences ought to be" no one else can really answer that.

[Gustaf]

Nobody has come anywhere near understanding the point of the question so I'm locking the thread.

I'm appalled that I have to spell this out, but what I meant was "if we as a people were making honest choices about what society, qua society, should orient itself around, would we really decide that computers and IT should be the only real growth industry, into which everybody else should be 'retrained'?"

I literally could not care less about expressing social needs or the common good as a function of what people "choose" to "consume", especially given the sorry set of options available.

No, I think that was clear. Hence, my answer is that we as a society make that choice when we decide what we are willing to pay people to do.

Since that wasn't what you meant, I suggested the question is (as it usually is in those cases) rather something like "I think people have wrong preferences and should have other preferences". Or, as you put it, you "don't care about what people choose to consume". But the answer to what people *should* consume is one that I as a confined neoliberal am not that opinionated on. I'm fine letting people be who they are. If you're not interested in what others' preferences are, I then think it's a little odd to ask other people, since this implies their preference will only be considered legitimate or valid if it coincides with your own.

[Gustaf]

Nobody has come anywhere near understanding the point of the question so I'm locking the thread.

I'm appalled that I have to spell this out, but what I meant was "if we as a people were making honest choices about what society, qua society, should orient itself around, would we really decide that computers and IT should be the only real growth industry, into which everybody else should be 'retrained'?"

I literally could not care less about expressing social needs or the common good as a function of what people "choose" to "consume", especially given the sorry set of options available.

No, I think that was clear. Hence, my answer is that we as a society make that choice when we decide what we are willing to pay people to do.

Since that wasn't what you meant, I suggested the question is (as it usually is in those cases) rather something like "I think people have wrong preferences and should have other preferences". Or, as you put it, you "don't care about what people choose to consume". But the answer to what people *should* consume is one that I as a confined neoliberal am not that opinionated on. I'm fine letting people be who they are. If you're not interested in what others' preferences are, I then think it's a little odd to ask other people, since this implies their preference will only be considered legitimate or valid if it coincides with your own.

I can't really tell if you're reifying "preferences" as this quasi-mystical force or if that's just how the language of "preference" comes across to people like me anyway, so I think I'll let this drop.

I find this question to be odd given the OP's own vocation (of which he admits he has not a clear idea what to do with) has not been engaged with other than with genuine curiousity even though it could be argued it's utterly pointless and of little net gain to anyone but the person who studies it. Likewise some people just have a passion for working with computers...

Of course! The difference is that there isn't an "academic theology industry" constantly shilling for itself in conversations about what higher education and the labor market should be geared towards. And if there were, I'm contrarian enough that I'd probably be studying something different. Thanks for pricking my hot-air bubble, though.

Preferences aren't mystical at all to me, so I've no idea what you're talking about. You said you didn't think what other people like is relevant to what people should work with. Yet, you're asking for opinions about what people should work with. I think there is at least a little bit of tension embedded in that approach which makes the question sound pretty rhetorical (and it increasingly seems like it is).

In an area that is differently politically charged I'm sure you could see what I mean. If I came on here and said "how many psychologists does society really need?" and imply that people should get over their mental illness problems, I'd probably be condemned. One reason would probably be that it'd seemed a bit weird for me to decide for other people whether they need psychologists or not. And, importantly, if someone telling me "I need a psychologist" doesn't convince me that they actually do, it's hard to imagine someone telling me "that person needs a psychologist" would convince me. Which then makes the question seem a bit odd.

[Gustaf]

The idea that x number of computer programmers (or much of any other "new economy" occupation, really) are as immediately indispensable to the people who use their services as x number of psychologists isn't the sort of insinuation that I think I (I personally) am capable of discussing objectively, so I don't really see any point in continuing this argument, except to say that believing that there should be standards for value to society other than "what people can be convinced to pay for" doesn't mean ipso facto that I don't care about other people's opinions. Also that (in my experience, at least) it's possible to discuss rhetorical questions on their own terms and to derive usable lines of discussion from them, otherwise they wouldn't be called "rhetorical".

I guess the plus side of people shilling for ~coding lessons~ as a panacea for Middle America's labor market woes is that people can, in principle, do coding anywhere that has internet access, so one doesn't, in principle, have to desperately scramble to make it into one of a few hip-'n'-happening metropoles the way one does with certain other "new economy" jobs.

Right, you think it'd be unreasonable for someone else to dictate to you whether you need a psychologist or not.

If I understand your model, your problem with the market is that it allows minorities to buy things the majority doesn't think they need, so the solution is to allow majority override of minority preferences.

I mean, to be clear, I agree with you that most apps are dumb. I think lots of stuff is dumb. Most contemporary music, reality shows, fashion. I hate olives. My solution is simply not to consume any of these things. I will sometimes in conversation try to convince other people that my subjective taste is correct. But if they want to spend the money they earned on things they like, I'm ultimately fine with it. I'll spend mine on the things I want. It's one thing to be elitist and look down on other peoples' pleasures but I think framing that in terms of societal needs is a bit dubious. I think it's fine to grant individuals autonomy over deciding their own needs, whether I understand or can relate to those needs or not. Using my understanding or agreement as the yardstick to determine the legitimacy of someone's want I think is both unnecessary and not particularly agreeable.

[Gustaf]

It's absolutely fascinating how neoliberals these days don't even have to preach on the glorious virtues of The Market anymore, because they have been so thoroughly immersed in their creed that they can't even comprehend why anyone would not view it as the only possible mechanism for making social decisions. Truly a textbook case in the study of ideologies.

Why do you assume that someone else's position must be due to blind dogma? I have put a lot of thought into my position and I'd be inclined to think you're the one who is too "immersed in a creed" to understand the alternative viewpoint here.

Nathan, I'm a little disappointed that you refuse to engage with my criticism but I obviously can't force you to.