[petrolhead_chn]

Originally Posted by earthian

Another factor is the increasing use of 'automation' in conventional IT industry, as i understand.

Yes! RPA - Robotic Process Automation is the new keyword right now. Use of UIPath, MS Power Bi, etc., are being used to reduce headcount and save on operational costs. Most of whom I meet today are talking about RPA. Somehow I am not interested in it but I am worried it might be necessary to earn my bread and butter. ;-)

To me, few reasons why we are going up and down without consistency in IT/ITes/BPO areas are-

1. In the name of competition and development there has arose too many companies in the past and are still arising and most of which is without a genuine leader(read owner). "Got a client? Lets recruit somebody and start earning something." When these companies are not consistent and go down on performance the client loses confidence and may switch over but how many times? Most of the clients must be tired and must be deciding to pull off or try other alternates.

2. No real managers or thick headed selfish guys at mid/senior level - such people with authority just restrict the flow of fresh ideas from their subordinates in an effort to safeguard their positions and take credit of other's doing. They only want to do it themselves and do not want to delegate. Stagnated thoughts and restricted thoughts from such people at mid/senior level has hampered the growth of organizations. All they think about is how to keep up their image and put down the image of others. And how long would the subordinates take this scoundrel act? They either keep quiet or jump over to another company or just don't give elevated performance but just retain their jobs. Clients need ideas and how could that come out without collective efforts? The company eventually falls.

3. Lack of core knowledge of CEOs/MDs/Owner(s). "Been there. Done it." Not many go through it and without understanding it how could they probably run their organization and further monitor the day-to-day operations? How can they even think about value addition. All they can do is take the clients to a party and keep giving magical pictures which will be a blank black board with nothing to project at the time of which they lose their cool and resort to professional royal whipping. All they focus is on balance sheets. They need to get on the floor and do it.

We have come a long way in this route and it is necessary that organizations start thinking collectively and learn to adapt, accept and accomplish what is necessary to keep things going and shine outstandingly.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by earthian

Another factor is the increasing use of 'automation' in conventional IT industry, as i understand.

Automation isn't exactly a new-fangled idea. Even before it became the much-abused buzzword it is today, plenty of companies shied away from implementing robust systems that require minimal human intervention, because they wanted to avoid short term capex, ignoring the longer-term savings it would bring in both personnel expenses and opex. Lots are still doing it today.

IT Service companies were and still are predominantly overstaffed, with plenty of roles being redundant even without considering automation. Reason? Show additional headcount needs, bill customer at inflated rates while paying the actual employee peanuts, pocket the difference. Customers didn't care when the going was good, now every cent of expense gets scrutinized.

Originally Posted by centaur

It isn't about the dollar here actually but the urge to push people into roles they are not happy.....

Two sides to every story. For every case of a reluctant Individual Contributor forced to assume a Manager role, there are plenty who salivate at the prospect.

Most neither have the aptitude/competence nor any real intent to actually become managers, but are driven by the 'prestige' of having reportees and bossing people around (social mindset) and the misconception that management is easy compared to doing the hard yards technically. When reality hits, plenty get disillusioned very fast, and switch back to IC roles. I'm myself a reluctant 'Manager' part of my time, but my role demands I stay hands-on in my area of expertise, am a designated SME for my workgroup and will neither mind nor struggle to switch back to an IC role if the need arises.

As for options, they always exist, but aren't always necessarily easy or abundantly available. Life's hard, and everyone makes compromises after weighing pros/cons.

If you aren't there, then you aren't worth (capability), and if you are there, then too you aren't worth (skillsets).

Making career choices based on peer pressure (or what someone thinks you should do) is probably the worst thing one could do to themselves, but plenty still do it because they trust others' judgment more than their own, or the alternative sometimes means stepping down before stepping up. I call it the ladder mindset, most people are too scared/reluctant to jump off a high step of a short ladder they don't want to be on, to move to a lower step on a taller ladder. Social stigma at play again, notwithstanding that the taller ladder has higher scope to climb longer-term.

I've recruited quite a bit, and anyone who bothers to listen always gets the same advice from me. Paycheck is important, but be really sure what you're signing up for. I've seen plenty of disastrous career choices being made with people chasing either money or 'prestigious roles' they thought they wanted until they realized the glamor is fake and the hard work is real, or just that they didn't really want it to begin with and got swayed by outside influences, or what they wanted and what they're capable of don't match (capability/skillset).

Originally Posted by aargee

Yes, this is also another reason......

Voluntary attrition is really high when markets are up (hitting mid-20% a few years ago), esp. at lower levels because plenty of the workforce is interested only in making a quick buck, and not much else. Recruitment and deployment readiness doesn't come cheap (time, money, or effort-wise), and I'm not entirely sure anyone hopping jobs frequently really thinks or cares about all that. Most decisions hinge on "What's in it for me?" scenarios, so the blame floats both ways.

[centaur]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Two sides to every story. For every case of a reluctant Individual Contributor forced to assume a Manager role, there are plenty who salivate at the prospect.

How many people at say 15-18 years of experience in India still code? If your answer is majority, then I stand corrected. Compare that to the situation in the West. There are people with 20+ years of experience who are still coding. You wont even find 50% people in that experience level in India who code. That is specifically why the job loses are happening in India and not abroad.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Most neither have the aptitude/competence nor any real intent to actually become managers

It is developed just like other skills. If you call it capability then too it needs to be developed as very few have a natural one. As per this logic most cant be coders/developers too. Take a fresher out of college and see what they can code? That is why they are put through extensive training programs isn't it?

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Making career choices based on peer pressure (or what someone thinks you should do) is probably the worst thing one could do to themselves, but plenty still do it because they trust others' judgment more than their own, or the alternative sometimes means stepping down before stepping up.
.

I ain't talking about peer pressure. Its what your manager says during the appraisals. Friends had had this told to them - you are at 15 years and still dont lead a team. What are you doing more apart from your deliverables to get a better rating?

Anyway this is a never ending discussion. So will rest it at this

[nitinbose]

Originally Posted by petrolhead_chn

we are going up and down without consistency in IT/ITes/BPO areas are-

1. In the name of competition and development there has arose too many companies in the past and are still arising and most of which is without a genuine leader(read owner). "Got a client? Lets recruit somebody and start earning something." When these companies are not consistent and go down on performance the client loses confidence and may switch over but how many times? Most of the clients must be tired and must be deciding to pull off or try other alternates.

2. No real managers or thick headed selfish guys at mid/senior level - such people with authority just restrict the flow of fresh ideas from their subordinates in an effort to safeguard their positions and take credit of other's doing. They only want to do it themselves and do not want to delegate. Stagnated thoughts and restricted thoughts from such people at mid/senior level has hampered the growth of organizations. All they think about is how to keep up their image and put down the image of others. And how long would the subordinates take this scoundrel act? They either keep quiet or jump over to another company or just don't give elevated performance but just retain their jobs. Clients need ideas and how could that come out without collective efforts? The company eventually falls.

3. Lack of core knowledge of CEOs/MDs/Owner(s). "Been there. Done it." Not many go through it and without understanding it how could they probably run their organization and further monitor the day-to-day operations? How can they even think about value addition. All they can do is take the clients to a party and keep giving magical pictures which will be a blank black board with nothing to project at the time of which they lose their cool and resort to professional royal whipping. All they focus is on balance sheets. They need to get on the floor and do it.

You've nailed it! Organizations simply recruit manpower whenever they have a project, complete the project and fire everyone. They dont care about the growth of the organization or a long term goal. A senior official joins and he or she recruits a set of people who are known to him/her and the department becomes their baby. They project some unrealistic plan or growth, try to push things along and finally the organization realizes these people are not going to deliver. The entire team is fired and the whole episode repeats - with some other boss and their cronies.

Organizations should hire people based on actual qualifications and talent, which is the least case in India. Nobody wants to take any ownership, responsibilities, build skills or go out of the way to achieve organizational development, simply filing one's pockets and pay EMI. Management should have a long term visibility and plan well in advance so that the company does not suffer and is well placed in the market.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by centaur

I know I will be getting a lot of brickbats for this post of mine from many here but I solely blame the industry for these job losses and not the technology advancement.

EDIT - P.S. I am speaking strictly of the IT services industry. Not sure of others

Should the blame only go to the industry? Most of us got really bad engineering education. I know I did. I passed out as E&C engineer without ever learning Fourier transforms, because I could skip it in choice. That's like a fireman who has never seen fire. The prime directive of any company is to make money, and not train the ill-trained engineers like me. If engineering colleges didn't impart education, how can we expect profit motivated industry to provide it? Out of their sense of charity?

It is up to the individual to ensure he/she gets the right education and stay current throughout their career. Don't ever shift this responsibility to others, especially to employers. They are already paying you.

Few years ago I had discussed how one can manage to choose their work.

Originally Posted by centaur

How many people at say 15-18 years of experience in India still code?

I am 48, I still code half the time. My senior partner (US resident) is 64, he still maintains the code he wrote 25 years ago because it is being used by some clients. This is quite common in USA, and rare as a snow leopard in India.

Last year a cousin's son questioned me on this. He is 12 years experienced and already has a director designation.

He: I hear you still code.
Me: Yeah, and I enjoy it.
He: But why!!! Why don't you leave it to the juniors?
Me: When did you stop?
He: After crossing 6 years of experience, I have never coded.
Me: Do you have any idea how a programmer with 25+ years experience codes?
He: Um.... No.
Me: Yet, you want me to stop it. Why should the most experienced programmer in the company not code?
He: Ugh...
Me: If you are in a company where nobody needs to code after 6 years of seniority, it tells me that your company is dealing with low-tech work. You can't take that model and apply it to companies that do hi-tech work, who need lot more experienced programmers.
He: Oh...OK.. that makes sense.

[nitinbose]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Last year a cousin's son questioned me on this. He is 12 years experienced and already has a director designation.

He: I hear you still code.
Me: Yeah, and I enjoy it.
He: But why!!! Why don't you leave it to the juniors?
Me: When did you stop?
He: After crossing 6 years of experience, I have never coded.
Me: Do you have any idea how a programmer with 25+ years experience codes?
He: Um.... No.
Me: Yet, you want me to stop it. Why should the most experienced programmer in the company not code?
He: Ugh...
Me: If you are in a company where nobody needs to code after 6 years of seniority, it tells me that your company is dealing with low-tech work. You can't take that model and apply it to companies that do hi-tech work, who need lot more experienced programmers.
He: Oh...OK.. that makes sense.

Quite true! As you continue and gain work experience, you develop a lot of related skills as well, making you more efficient. Unfortunately, organizations only look at the CTC for the candidate and not how well the candidate fits. A major reason why companies fail, especially in India. They simply want to make money by hook or by crook!

Strangely enough, people in India feel that implementing, coding etc., should only be performed by juniors and considers it as manual labor. As you gain experience, you should become some "manager" or "director", even if you simply chasing flies.

[srishiva]

Recession thread is receding to people's skill. There are lot of MNC product companies where people who are 50 years and older still code and contribute technically. I know I will be one until I retire. Service companies have different needs I guess.

So its mostly about the needs. When you have lakhs of jobs opening up every year until now, you need managers too. You dont have older guys to hire just for being managers.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by centaur

How many people at say 15-18 years of experience in India still code? If your answer is majority, then I stand corrected. Compare that to the situation in the West. There are people with 20+ years of experience who are still coding. You wont even find 50% people in that experience level in India who code. That is specifically why the job loses are happening in India and not abroad.

The answer is the majority have no real passion for a technical job, and a good chunk of the blame rests with our education systems and social conditioning from infancy. Most of us are conditioned/pressurized from the beginning to take up what pays best, not what we'd love to do. That leads to people growing up wanting whatever gets them ahead quickly, because passion for a skill-set never gets into the equation. I know a few passionate coders, they stuck through it when the pay was shit and social perception nauseating. They're now reaping rewards, some financially and some doing really great projects (different strokes for different folks). Our own friendly moderator Samurai-san is an excellent example.

Two close friends of mine from school went to IIT Delhi. One took up Mathematics & Computing, the other Mechanical Engg. The former stuck to his field after graduation, and is a coder/developer today doing some really cutting edge stuff on mobile/handheld platforms. Nowhere close to being rich but loves his work with a passion. The latter did an MBA from IIM-A, moved to Banking and is earning big bucks. Different strokes for different folks, who am I to judge?

It is developed just like other skills. If you call it capability then too it needs to be developed as very few have a natural one. As per this logic most cant be coders/developers too. Take a fresher out of college and see what they can code? That is why they are put through extensive training programs isn't it?

Most skills are acquired, but some character traits can't be trained.

Empathy being one obvious example. I'm not talking about training sessions where they show slides about being empathetic, I'm talking about being empathetic by nature. Some are, some aren't, some get decent enough at it if they try long and hard enough.

Curiosity and Inquisitiveness are a couple others, you either are or you aren't. Companies train people for tasks they want accomplished, not for enhancing their knowledge. I'm compelled to quote Samurai again here; one's education is one's own responsibility, can't be left to others with vested interests.

Its what your manager says during the appraisals. Friends had had this told to them - you are at 15 years and still dont lead a team. What are you doing more apart from your deliverables to get a better rating?

Managers are not always right, and that's exactly why the saying goes 'People quit managers, not jobs'. Not everyone is born to be a leader of some sort, some are terrific Individual Contributors, people running the actual show behind the scenes. It's the 'you're nothing if you're not a manager' mentality that needs to change. You need to understand the managers in the conversations you mentioned probably went through the same thing earlier on. It's a vicious circle, like ragging. 'It was done to me, so I'll do it to the next guy' type of thinking. Some break the cycle and evolve, most don't.

Less said about ratings, the better. Honestly, if you sit through one year of appraisal discussions behind the scenes in a large organisation, you'd lose faith in the process forever.

Anyway this is a never ending discussion. So will rest it at this

I thought you were interested in getting additional perspective, and responded in good faith. No intent to preach, so will be glad to stop here.

[centaur]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Should the blame only go to the industry? Most of us got really bad engineering education. I know I did. The prime directive of any company is to make money, and not train the ill-trained engineers like me. If engineering colleges didn't impart education, how can we expect profit motivated industry to provide it? Out of their sense of charity?

It is up to the individual to ensure he/she gets the right education and stay current throughout their career. Don't ever shift this responsibility to others, especially to employers. They are already paying you.

I am 48, I still code half the time. My senior partner (US resident) is 64, he still maintains the code he wrote 25 years ago because it is being used by some clients. This is quite common in USA, and rare as a snow leopard in India.

Equating companies to engineering colleges isn't fair IMHO as they are diametrically opposite in terms of what we give and what we get. That discussion is for another day

I hope you will agree with me when I say there is a huge difference between ill trained and untrained. You as an ECE joined IT and started coding. You were(assuming here) untrained in coding for most part of it. You can train an untrained person but setting right an ill trained is difficult as it begins with the unlearning what has already been learnt. Here the companies are laying off under the pretext that "they cannot be trained" and not that "they are not training themselves". The former implies the companies tried but were unsuccessful but the later means the employees never tried.

Also whats wrong in expecting relevant training as the industry sees a need for? If they are already paying, why train freshers either? Even the training provided in these companies is draconian with Java, mainframe and .Net being the top most training programs. If the companies are seeing a change in technology, shouldn't they be harbinger of those technologies in their own training programs?

You are still coding and that is a good thing but majority is not and thats the point I am trying to drive across. Many dont even get a choice.

Companies these days want bulls which can give milk, lay eggs, swim like a fish and climb trees. Adding to it there are double standards all around. Apart from the double edged sword I spoke of, the other one that most often people get hit with is that - "you need to be flexible across domains and technologies" and when the person does so he gets hit with "you are not consistent, you have been across multiple domains and technologies and dont have a considerable experience in any one of them".

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

The answer is the majority have no real passion for a technical job, and a good chunk of the blame rests with out education systems and social conditioning from infancy. Most of us are conditioned/pressurized from the beginning to take up what pays best, not what we'd love to do. That leads to people growing up wanting whatever gets them ahead quickly, because passion for work never gets into the equation. I know a few passionate coders, they stuck through it when the pay was shit and social perception nauseating. They're now reaping rewards, some financially and some doing really great projects (different strokes for different folks).

Will go by what you say but even in that case basically the higher the designation, the better the pay is what it implies (?) and that is exactly what is wrong is what I am saying. Someone pointed out earlier that in the west, a technical coder, and architect and a manager are paid almost at par if they have almost similar experience but I can vouch that, that is not the case in Indian service industry. That is what makes people ask for promotions every 2-3 years and they end up getting shot first.

Majority not having a real passion for a technical job I feel is very relative and cannot be generalized.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Most skills are acquired, but some character traits can't be trained.

But then those character traits are across the industry and not specific to a particular set of people

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Managers are not always right, and that's exactly why the saying goes 'People quit managers, not jobs'. Not everyone is born to be a leader of some sort, some are terrific Individual Contributors, people running the actual show behind the scenes. It's the 'you're nothing if you're not a manager' mentality that needs to change. You need to understand the managers in the conversations you mentioned probably went through the same thing earlier on. It's a vicious circle, like ragging. 'It was done to me, so I'll do it to the next guy' type of thinking. Some break the cycle and evolve, most don't.

eerrr.....isn't this what I too have been trying to say? So whats the discussion about then? Am a little confused now.

I am trying to say that people shouldnt be pushed to take managerial roles because -

1. His/her experience has exceeded a particular level
2. a managerial position offers better pay than a technical coder/developer/architect

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

I thought you were interested in getting additional perspective, and responded in good faith. No intent to preach, so will be glad to stop here.

Just thought it might be getting OT and decided to stop but your point accepted. So got back in. Hope you do too

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by centaur

......

Will go by what you say but even in that case basically the higher the designation, the better the pay is what it implies (?)

Not necessarily. Pay depends on a lot of factors, the most critical one being what value is your role to the organisation. Managers don't always earn more than their reportees, and revenue-generating roles earn significantly more than support/administrative roles, even in the same designation bands.

ask for promotions every 2-3 years.....

That's a major mindset issue, and it's not limited to IT alone. Tenure-based promotions take away the incentive to do well, why work hard when one can get that promotion just by staying around long enough? Also, lower-hierarchy promotions in India are usually nothing more than a title change, job description usually stays the same.


Contrast that with the West, promotions usually happen only when you're a genuine candidate to step up to the next level and take on additional responsibilities. I have colleagues who are great performers in their current jobs, but haven't been promoted for years because they don't fit the job description for the next level. That's unheard of in India, you 'have' to be promoted after X years.

Majority not having a real passion for a technical job I feel is very relative and cannot be generalized.

I speak from objective experience, but realize it's still my opinion so you're free to disregard it.

But then those character traits are across the industry and not specific to a particular set of people

Never said it's only about IT. Being a Manager/Leader is not everyone's cup of tea, and it applies to every organized human activity, not just IT Services.

eerrr.....isn't this what I too have been trying to say? So whats the discussion about then? Am a little confused now.

No confusion required, I never disagreed with you on this point, just added my perspective. Managers are for extracting work, mentors are for career advice/guidance. Usually best to keep them separate. Someone with a vested interest in your performance will never be able to give unbiased advice.

I am trying to say that people shouldn't be pushed to take managerial roles because -

1. His/her experience has exceeded a particular level
2. a managerial position offers better pay than a technical coder/developer/architect

Unless one is bonded labor, I'm not entirely sure how anyone can be forced to do something they don't want to.

Dangling carrots (money, designation, perks) notwithstanding, people need to evaluate what they want to do, and how equipped they're to handle it, then educate themselves to bridge the gap.

We all make compromises based on a whole gamut of reasons (financial commitments, personal/family/location preferences), but then choices have consequences.

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

I know a Quality Process Engineer at IBM USA. He was SO GOOD at his job that they simply WOULDNT let him retire. He used to Code and he used to be like a Super Experienced Top Expert in his area of work.
Finally, last year, at the age of 72, they allowed him to retire!
Such a nice polite man. No ego at all.
Didn't need to prove anything to anyone by having masses of people reporting to him and so on. Commanded respect, never demanded it.

I lost two of my mentors to retirement in the last couple of years, one German and the other American.
Both individual contributors all their careers, powerhouses in their respective fields of work but not an ounce of misplaced pride or the need to seek external validation.

Both were cajoled into working well into their 70s by their organisations, and neither organisation could find like-for-like replacements for either. I owe a lot of what I know today to them. Top blokes.

[shankar.balan]

Originally Posted by nitinbose

Strangely enough, people in India feel that implementing, coding etc., should only be performed by juniors and considers it as manual labor. As you gain experience, you should become some "manager" or "director", even if you simply chasing flies.

I know a Quality Process Engineer at IBM USA. He was SO GOOD at his job that they simply WOULDNT let him retire. He used to Code and he used to be like a Super Experienced Top Expert in his area of work.
Finally, last year, at the age of 72, they allowed him to retire!
Such a nice polite man. No ego at all.
Didn't need to prove anything to anyone by having masses of people reporting to him and so on. Commanded respect, never demanded it.

Now how many people in the Indian IT world, do we know, who are actually like this?
Here, the path to progress seems to be only about people management. And most people who are tasked with people management hardly know how to manage themselves, let alone manage their people!

You're absolutely right when you say that here in India just by hanging around chasing flies for long enough, people feel that they are automatically "entitled" to become General Managers, Directors, Senior Directors, Vice Presidents, Presidents and perhaps even "God" himself!

[centaur]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Not necessarily. Pay depends on a lot of factors, the most critical one being what value is your role to the organisation. Managers don't always earn more than their reportees, and revenue-generating roles earn significantly more than support/administrative roles, even in the same designation bands.

Not in services. In services, mostly, higher the designation, higher the pay and incentives

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

No confusion, I never disagreed with you on this point. Just added my perspective. Managers are for extracting work, mentors are for career advice/guidance. There's a difference.

Managers extract work is true but when the team gets stuck in delivering something, managers are supposed to guide them out and mentor too in some cases. Thats the kind of thing I was speaking of. Mentoring isnt limited to career advice/guidance only

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Unless one is bonded labor, I'm not entirely sure how anyone can be forced to do something they don't want to.

1. Higher pay based on designations
2. Experience level of a person

and this is exactly what I have been trying to say from long including the example of 3 of my friends who eventually had to switch jobs to escape from getting into a people manager role.

[Samurai]

Just saw it is getting even more brutal...

http://www.livemint.com/Industry/4CX...-at-least.html

Originally Posted by centaur

Equating companies to engineering colleges isn't fair IMHO as they are diametrically opposite in terms of what we give and what we get. That discussion is for another day

We pay colleges to give us education. So there is a clear expectation that they must educate/train us well, for the money we pay them.

The employers on the other hand pay you to do work. If they train you, it is because it is a job requirement. You can't expect them to train you to make you future proof. They could, but it is not their duty or responsibility. If you hire a car driver, do you assume any responsibility to train him while he is working for you? If he not driving well, not following signals well, you might take time to educate him on that, because it is a job requirement. This is exactly what corporate training is all about, training you for the job. But you are not going to train your driver in data science so that he has a career when auto-driving cars takeover.

So let's be clear that employer has no responsibility to make your career future proof.

However, employer may take on the responsibility to train the employees well, as a retention strategy. I do that in my company. We can't pay very high, so we give good training. We even sponsor MS/MBA for long term employees.

Originally Posted by centaur

You were(assuming here) untrained in coding for most part of it. You can train an untrained person but setting right an ill trained is difficult as it begins with the unlearning what has already been learnt.

I was self-trained most of my career. I got my first software job by showcasing a TUI library I developed in x86 assembly language. I even had to donate that library to that company as pre-condition to be hired. It became their primary interface for the next few years.

Originally Posted by centaur

Here the companies are laying off under the pretext that "they cannot be trained" and not that "they are not training themselves". The former implies the companies tried but were unsuccessful but the later means the employees never tried.

As I mentioned before, the responsibility of staying relevant is with the employee. Some employers like me volunteer to keep the employees relevant, but that doesn't mean employers are responsible. You are not paying them for it.

[Red Liner]

Pretty sad. Looks like this will drive a housing real estate crash in the next couple of months for sure in bangalore. Already, there is a massive over supply of apartments. Now even those who are not retrenched are going to sit extremely tight with their wallets atleast for a year to see how things ease up.

[AltoLXI]

This is from Vineet Nayar (former CEO - HCL)

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/58662528.cms

I just hope there will not be a mad scramble to "get trained in AI/Robotics" like the Y2K days. I remember in 1999-2000, a truck making company was training people in COBOL.

A Y2K joke:

"In 1998, a programmer who had been working on Y2K fixes started to get anxious because he couldn't believe how pervasive the problem was. He switched from company to company trying to get away from it, but everywhere he went he became regarded as the Y2K expert and immediately became the team lead for that company's Y2K contingencies. He finally had a nervous breakdown, quit his job, and decided he wanted to be knocked unconscious when the Y2K actually came about.
A month before Y2K he was put into an artificial coma and cooled down to a near cryogenic easily sustained long term life support.
Unfortunately the life support notification system had a Y2K bug, and no one revived him for 8000 years.
Finally he was found and revived. He woke up, and saw himself surrounded by lots of glass, light, stainless steel, and tall beautiful people in white robes. He asked if he was in Heaven.
They replied, "No, this is Chicago. Actually but it's a lot like Heaven to someone like you."
"Someone like me?"
"You are from the 20th century. Many of the problems that existed in your lifetime have been solved for thousands of years. There is no hunger and no disease. There is no scarcity, or strife between races and creeds."
"What year is it now?"
"Yeah, about that - it's the year 9,998. You see, the year 10,000 is coming up, and we understand you know something called COBOL?"