https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2020....

Being able to do the work of 2-3 people is over-qualification. They are better utilized in smaller or failing companies that need the advantage of the boost.

Altho it is unlikely that most people will be willing to give up the bargaining power to convert experience to currency. So what do we do?

Who would want to go to a job if you have to struggle and make less than a YouTube influencer. It’s already happening to the youngest adult generation. The struggle is real.

... And why would they do that? Smaller companies often can't pay the same and failing companies are mental health events waiting to happen. Most people leverage their experience and effectiveness into a better bargaining position.

Also why are you thinking that labor is zero-sum? Most developed countries these days have lots of jobs that are zero-sum, but software is definitely not one of them. There's a voracious demand for software developers all across the skill spectrum.

I am not saying labour is zero sum. Higher demand doesn’t necessarily translate to higher pays. Low level coding is an easier skill. But it can also be automated.

At higher levels of employment, there isn’t that much demand. The higher up the hierarchy, the number of years of experience and skill and education matter.

By siphoning labour to low level skill jobs, when high level skill ages out, there won’t be proper succession for knowledge transfer.

There will be a lot of casualties and smaller companies will die. So will successful companies that don’t know how to scale. Or don’t have enough money/capital to facilitate scaling.

What is important is stability for any company that has a long term vision. Eventually smaller companies will have to hire more people and if doing that means they can’t meet margins, the company is in trouble.

The only reason to reduce workers after reaching steady state is if the company automates essential key processes.