alt.hn

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm

by titanomachy

Apparently "top executive" median pay is $105,350 per year: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm

by nitwit005

Chief Executives is actually a specific sub-category of it and is, obviously, much smaller.

by seneca

Can you elaborate?

by MeetingsBrowser

The 1% pockets, this is where the vast majority of the extra productivity computers/internet/automation brought goes to for the last 50 years: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

by lm28469

  Lowest: $ 30,000 / $ 16,120
  Second: $ 58,020 / $ 43,850
  Middle: $ 94,000 / $ 74,730
  Fourth: $153,000 / $119,900
     Top:        - / $277,300

For a business, the question is whether you can make more money by doing more ambitious things.

by skybrian

But given that the stock market hasn't panicked, this must mean at least one of these premises is false:

1. Economic activity is relatively flat.

2. AI makes us a million billion zillion times more productive than we used to be.

3. The stock market is rooted in reality.

by yifanl

I think this is a very important point. The hedonic treadmill means real gains are discounted. The novelty information cycle is like an Osborn Effect for improvements, like the semi-annual Popular Mechanic's flying car covers where there is an enticing future perpetually nearly here and at the same time disappointingly never materialized.

by adolph

Agriculture is a good example of that: http://www.johnhearfield.com/History/Breadt.htm

by ivanjermakov

This time the jobs most in the crosshairs of AI are the jobs that constituted the paper pushing overhead of modern society, all the paper pushing jobs. Instead of $1 widgets from China replacing $2 domestic widgets it's gonna be $1 AI services replacing $2 services that require a real human.

This is hard to reason about because people tend to consume these kinds of services in big multi hundred or multi thousand dollar increments but in practice what it means is that when you have to engage an accountant, engineer, having something planned out in accordance with some standard, that will be substantially cheaper because of the reduced professional labor component.

And of course, as usual, the string pulling and in investor class will get fabulously wealthy along the way.

by cucumber3732842

Does the work you do provide more or less value to the company than your salary? Where does the difference go? If your killer feature closes a $5M deal, who gets that money?

We live as capitalist serfs. Someone else gets all the value you create, and you should be grateful for the peanuts they toss back to you.

by estimator7292

No one can predict everything perfectly. This is just the guidance based on the data that was reported. AI is advancing faster than anyone can imagine and no one knows the impact - good or bad.

by newhotelowner

Putting aside the slop facade place atop the data....why would we trust the data?

by just_once

(Source: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...)

Computer Programmers median pay according to BLS: $98,670 per year

(Source: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...)

Software developers typically do the following:

- Analyze users’ needs and then design and develop software to meet those needs Recommend software upgrades for customers’ existing programs and systems Design each piece of an application or system and plan how the pieces will work together

- Create a variety of models and diagrams showing programmers the software code needed for an application

- Ensure that a program continues to function normally through software maintenance and testing

- Document every aspect of an application or system as a reference for future maintenance and upgrades

(Source: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...)

Computer programmers typically do the following:

- Write programs in a variety of computer languages, such as C++ and Java

- Update and expand existing programs

- Test programs for errors and fix the faulty lines of computer code

- Create, modify, and test code or scripts in software that simplifies development

(Source: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...)

by Kerrick

    Programmers often are grouped into two broad types: Applications programmers and systems programmers. Applications programmers usually are oriented toward business, engineering, or science. They write software to handle specific jobs, such as a program used in an inventory control system or one to guide a missile after it has been fired. They also may work alone to revise existing packaged software. Systems programmers, on the other hand, maintain the software that controls the operation of an entire computer system. These workers make changes in the sets of instructions that determine how the central processing unit of the system handles the various jobs it has been given and communicates with peripheral equipment, such as terminals, printers, and disk drives. Because of their knowledge of the entire computer system, systems programmers often help applications programmers determine the source of problems that may occur with their programs.

    Programmers write programs according to the specifications determined primarily by computer software engineers and systems analysts. (Separate statements on computer software engineers and on computer systems analysts, database administrators, and computer scientists appear elsewhere in the Handbook.) After the design process is complete, it is the job of the programmer to convert that design into a logical series of instructions that the computer can follow. ... In practice, programmers often are referred to by the language they know, as are Java programmers, or the type of function they perform or environment in which they work, which is the case for database programmers, mainframe programmers, or Web programmers.

    Software engineers working in applications or systems development analyze users’ needs and design, construct, test, and maintain computer applications software or systems. Software engineers can be involved in the design and development of many types of software, including software for operating systems and network distribution, and compilers, which convert programs for execution on a computer. In programming, or coding, software engineers instruct a computer, line by line, how to perform a function. They also solve technical problems that arise. Software engineers must possess strong programming skills, but are more concerned with developing algorithms and analyzing and solving programming problems than with actually writing code. (A separate statement on computer programmers appears elsewhere in the Handbook.)

    15-1132 Software Developers, Applications

    Develop, create, and modify general computer applications software or specialized utility programs. Analyze user needs and develop software solutions. Design software or customize software for client use with the aim of optimizing operational efficiency. May analyze and design databases within an application area, working individually or coordinating database development as part of a team. May supervise computer programmers.

    15-1133 Software Developers, Systems Software

    Research, design, develop, and test operating systems-level software, compilers, and network distribution software for medical, industrial, military, communications, aerospace, business, scientific, and general computing applications. Set operational specifications and formulate and analyze software requirements. May design embedded systems software. Apply principles and techniques of computer science, engineering, and mathematical analysis.

    15-1131 Computer Programmers

    Create, modify, and test the code, forms, and script that allow computer applications to run. Work from specifications drawn up by software developers or other individuals. May assist software developers by analyzing user needs and designing software solutions. May develop and write computer programs to store, locate, and retrieve specific documents, data, and information.

    15-1134 Web Developers

    Design, create, and modify Web sites. Analyze user needs to implement Web site content, graphics, performance, and capacity. May integrate Web sites with other computer applications. May convert written, graphic, audio, and video components to compatible Web formats by using software designed to facilitate the creation of Web and multimedia content. Excludes "Multimedia Artists and Animators" (27-1014).

Reason for hope

by ripvanwinkle

They're saying that programmers will be declining. While Developers, and crucially, Testers and QA people will be increasing. That testers and QA become more important in the future sounds plausible to me in a future hypothetical world of ubiquitous AI.

All of that doesn't necessarily imply that the Developer class of employees will grow at the same rate as the Tester and QA classes of employees.

by bilbo0s

1: https://www.businessinsider.com/robot-dogs-quadruped-data-ce...

by booleanbetrayal

I doubt it'd be old hit-and-run, more like small scale Ukraine with drones filled with explosives.

by wiseowise

Potable water is far more important than AI or iPads ever will be, but the world's most valuable water company only does about 5B/year in revenue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Water_Works

by ForHackernews

It's also understated, because the real value of AI is not in replacing work, but making new products possible either because it's finally cheap enough to make them, or because -- AI.

by w10-1

Given the state of AI (LLMs) - they still need a very human (skilled driver) to operate

by dzonga

Now I'm not sure if this is actually an LLM only thing. Because I think people probably do similar when you ask them to give a number to things without providing a concrete grading rubric...

by kingstnap

Maybe it was linked from a comment somewhere on HN but just today I saw a post saying “Microwaves are the future of all food: if you don’t think so, you better get out of the kitchen”

Microwaves have already won. There will be a microwave in every home over the next few years.

It’s time to start microwave cooking or drown

by dwroberts

No, AI has not "already" won. And phrasing it as you do, "It's taking over. It might be a year or two, or five, or ten" is an admission of that.

People may indeed not pause, but there's never any guarantee that the next step of progress is possible; whatever we reach may be all we can do, and we'll only find out when we get there. Or it might go hyperbolic and give us everything.

I'm not certain, but I suspect Jevons paradox is probably the wrong thing to bring up here, that's about cheaper stuff revealing more latent demand, and sure, that's possible and it may reveal a latent demand for everyone to build their own 1:1 scale model of the USS Enterprise (any of them) as a personal home, but we may also find that AI ends the economic incentives for consumerism which in turn remove a big driver to constantly have more stuff and demand goes down to something closer to a home being a living yurt made out of genetically modified photovoltaic vines that also give us unlimited free food.

(I mean, if we're talking about the AI future, why not push it?)

What I do think is worth bringing up is comparative advantage: Again, this is just an "I think", I'm absolutely not certain here, but if AI can supply all demand at unlimited volumes*, I think the assumptions behind comparative advantage, break.

> It's time to surf or drown, because it doesn't look like any of the people in charge have the slightest clue about how to handle what's coming.

Yes, and I think they've also not even managed to figure out the internet yet.

* and AI may well be able to, even if all models collectively "only" reach the equivalent of a fully-rounded human of IQ 115; and yes I know IQ tests are dodgy, but we all know what they approximate, by "fully rounded" I mean that thing their steel-man form tries to approach, not test passing itself which would have the AI already beat that IQ score despite struggling with handling plates in a dishwasher.

by ben_w

Ah, the classic, forever-untestable "it's just around the corner" hypothesis.

I've lived through multiple "it's gonna be over in 12-18 months" arguments since November 2022. It's a truism for any technology to say that it's going to get better over time. But if you're convinced that "AI has already won", why not make a specific prediction? What jobs are going to be obsolete by when?

by lich_king

Jevons paradox was never relevant to cognitive surplus. That isn't what it's about.

Cognitive surplus only strengthens Jevons paradox. Humans are a competitive advantage for businesses in a world dominated by human needs

by jameslk

You'd probably put me into that bucket, although I'd disagree. I'm not at all against using AI to do something like: type up a high level summary of a product featureset for an executive that doesn't require deep technical accuracy.

What I AM against is: "summarize these million datapoints and into an output I can consume".

Why? Because the number of times I've already witnessed in the last year: someone using AI to build out their QBR deck or financial forecast, only to find out the AI completely hallucinated the numbers - makes my brain break. If I can't trust it to build an accurate graph of hard numbers without literally double checking all of its work, why would I bother in the first place?

In the same way, if you tell me you've got this amazing dataset that AI has built for you, my first thought is: I trust that about as much as the Iraqi Information Minister, because I've seen first hand the garbage output from supposedly the best AI platforms in the world.

*And to be clear: I absolutely think businesses across the board are replacing people with AI, and they can do so. And I also think it'll take 18+ months for someone to start asking questions only for them to figure out they've been directing the future of their company on garbage numbers that don't reflect reality.

by tw04

I think AI is not going anywhere.

I also don't think the future will play out as you envision. AI is a very poor replacement for humans.

And I say this as a misanthrope who doesn't have a particular beef against AI.

by surgical_fire

Published AI generated code is a mild negative signal for quality, but certainly not a fatal one.

Published AI generated English writing is worthless and should be automatically ignored.

by Miraste

I could understand if all the naysayers doing old fashioned stuff like work all of a sudden have no more work to do. But the AI Embracers will have what, in comparison? Five years of experience manipulating large language models that are smarter than them by a thousand fold?

by keybored

Could you elaborate on this? Is it just a claim, or is there some consensus out there based on something that it doesn't/shouldn't apply?

by wcarss

So... What exactly are you talking about?

by marcosdumay

a. "Has already won"

b. "Might be a year or two, or five, or ten"

by nyeah

I use AI every day as part of my work, it's very unclear to me where it's going and we have no idea if we're on an exponent or S-curve. Now, normally people talk with conviction because they have more data. But one of the breakthroughs of crypto was this social convention of just have very strong opinions based on nothing. A lot of that culture has come over to AI.

Your comment typifies this, it's all about I need to get on board, AI has already won, you've got an advantage over me because you realise this.

Go back, look at the actual article you're commenting on. Did the AI analysis of job exposure provide anything of value. I'm not totally convinced it did, and you didn't even think about it. What critical thinking did you do about the data that came out of this dashboard.

by Traster

This cuts both ways...

> there's a whole shit ton of work people do that won't be meaningful or economically relevant in the very near term

What work do you think AI is going to replace? There are whole categories of people who are going to drown in the hubris of "AI being able to do the job" when it cant.

The moment one stops pretending that its going to be AI, that were getting AGI and views it as another tool the perspective changes. Strip away the hype and there is a LOT there... The walls of the garden are gonna get ripped down (Agents force the web open, and create security issues). They end lots of dark patterns, you cant make your crappy service hard to cancel... because an agent is more persistent to that. One size fits all software is going to face a reckoning (how many things are jammed into sales force sideways... that dont have to be). These things are existential threats to how our industry is TODAY, and no one seems to be talking about the impact to existing business models when the overhead of building software gets cut in half (and how it leads to more software not less).

by zer00eyz

However I was completely unimpressed with this tool when I saw it this weekend for two reasons:

The first is directly related to how this is built:

> These are rough LLM estimates, not rigorous predictions.

This visualization is neat (well except for reason number two), but it's pretty much just AI slop repackaged. There's no substance behind any of these predictions. Now I'm perfectly open to the critique that normal BLS predictions are also potentially slop, but I don't see how this is particularly valuable.

And the second, like 8% of male population I'm colorblind, so I can't read this chart.

For the record, I do agentic coding pretty much everyday, have shipped AI products, done work in AI research, etc.

Ironically, it's comments like yours that keep me the most skeptical. The fact that an attack on a strawman is the top comment really makes me feel like there is some sort of true mania here that I might even be a bit caught up in.

by crystal_revenge

Over the past year (where Opus has supposedly changed the game), we're seeing ~10% more job postings for software developers compared to this time last year [1,2]

A huge amount of our work is not easily verifiable, therefore it's extremely hard to actually train an LLM to be better at it. It doesn't magically get better across the board.

AI HAS WON. SURF OR DROWN. YOU DONT KNOW WHATS COMING!!!?!?!

Stop with this doomer drivel. It's sick. It's not based in reality and all it does is stress innocent people out for no reason.

1: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IHLIDXUSTPSOFTDEVE

2: https://trueup.io/job-trend

by AstroBen

AI is great for searching. I ll give you that. And that itself is a big deal. In software development, there is also real value provided by AI if you use it for code reviews. But I am not sure how much worth it would be if you have to retrain a model with new information just to give better search results and for code reviews..

Maybe that will be subsidized by all the people like you who want everything to be done by AI, for the rest of us to use it as a better search tool and use it for quick reviews..who knows!

by qsera

brainbroken by chatbots lmao

by applfanboysbgon

Man.. I suggest you touch some grass. You are living in a bubble.

by j3k3

Companies Are Laying Off Workers Because of AI’s Potential - Not Its Performance - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47401368 - March 2026

> Some companies that announced large headcount reductions because of AI have since revised their talent strategies or have faced public criticism. Klarna, for example, the Swedish fintech that offers “buy now, pay later” e-commerce loans, reduced its human workforce by 40% between December 2022 and December 2024 as it invested in AI. (The company used a hiring freeze and natural attrition, not layoffs to achieve this cut.) But in 2025 the company’s CEO told Bloomberg that Klarna was reinvesting in human support, explaining that prioritizing lower costs had also led to “lower quality.” A spokesman told HBR that the company has hired about 20 people to deal with customer service cases the AI assistant can’t handle, and that the use of AI “changes the profile of the human agents you need in the customer support role.” The language-learning company Duolingo announced that AI would be used to replace many human contractors, and it faced considerable criticism on social media.

> For one, AI typically performs specific tasks and not entire jobs. As an example, Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton stated in 2016 that it was “completely obvious” that AI would outperform human radiologists within five years. A decade later, there is no evidence that a single radiologist has lost a job to AI—in part because radiologists perform many tasks other than reading scan images. Indeed, there is a substantial shortage of them.

The 'AI-Washing' of Job Cuts Is Corrosive and Confusing - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47401499 - March 2026

* Companies are "AI washing" layoffs, blaming artificial intelligence for workforce reductions they would have made anyway, according to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

* A Resume.org survey found that 59% of hiring managers say they emphasize AI's role in layoffs because it "is viewed more favorably by stakeholders than saying layoffs or hiring freezes are driven by financial constraints".

* The stated reason for the layoff matters more than the fact of the layoff, and framing cuts as proactive restructuring around AI can result in a valuation boost, even if the technology doesn't actually work.

> The AI premium isn’t even reliable. By late 2025, Goldman Sachs group Inc. found that investors were actually punishing AI-attributed layoffs, with shares falling an average of 2%. The analysts concluded that investors simply didn’t believe the companies. But Block’s surge shows the incentive hasn’t vanished. It’s just a lottery instead of a sure thing. And executives keep buying tickets.

> The broader data confirms the gap between narrative and reality. A National Bureau of Economic Research study published in February surveyed thousands of C-suite executives across the US, UK, Germany and Australia. Almost 90% said AI had zero impact on employment over the past three years. Challenger, Gray & Christmas tracked 1.2 million layoffs in 2025, and AI was cited in fewer than 55,000 of them. That’s 4.5%. Plain old “market and economic conditions” accounted for four times as many.

So! Sophisticated capital market participants don't believe this; why do people here?

AI is making CEOs delusional [video] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6nem-F8AG8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

by toomuchtodo

It's been several years and nothing has changed except the AI grift is crumbling as we get out of the post-covid slump.

by sublinear