7 Comments
User's avatar
Stuart Miller's avatar

THIS! Great job as ever @Ruben

ad's avatar

There is an alternative development: we might not need as many seniors in the future as we have now. Juniors are still recruited, just a lot less. Maybe it is just that so many are no longer needed.

Jonah McIntire's avatar

The examples in the article are good. The conclusion is quite weak. It seems very likely that we simply won't need as many mid or senior staff in these roles in 10 years, and the whole "but where will all the sniors come from" hand wringing is overdone.

James Holt's avatar

The piece nails the structural shift. What it doesn’t say: the junior role wasn’t just training ground. It was how senior people stayed calibrated. When the person asking basic questions disappears, so does the institutional check on whether your assumptions have drifted. The 2029 talent gap is real. The epistemic rot problem shows up sooner.

SocialEyes's avatar

First paragraph repeated accidentally. Looks like copy editors are still needed. 😀😀

The Impact of AI's avatar

The 'missing rung' framing is the one that should be in every boardroom conversation right now. We're not eliminating the $150K role, we're eliminating the only path that built the person who could do it. The 2029 talent cliff is going to surprise a lot of companies that thought they were just being efficient.

Supriya Subramaniam's avatar

Well researched. My opinion is careers of the future will focus less on corporate. What do you think?

https://supriyasubramaniam.substack.com/p/the-future-of-work-10-careers-that?r=3klxxr&utm_medium=ios