>If you make developers 50x more efficient, won't you need 50x fewer developers?

Developers today are 50X more efficient than when they had to input machine code on punched tape, yet the number of developers needed today is far larger than it was in those times.

But think how large of a job program that would have been.

Hundreds of people manually writing assembly and paid middle class wages. Not a compiler in sight.

In the years leading up to the singularity I’d expect to see a lot of Graeberian “Bullshit Jobs”.

Everyone knows they’re BS but as a society we allow them because we aren’t willing to implement socialism or UBI.

There's no reason to believe that we'll need another 50x more developers, though.

There isn't? I feel like there's still a ton of places software hasn't even touched and not because it doesn't make sense, but because no one's gotten to it. It's not the most profitable thing people could write software for.

Even if not, the original claim was that we may see a 50X decrease and I personally don't think that is likely, pre-Singularity anyway :)

Greater efficiency leads to greater consumption unless demand is saturated. Given software’s ability to uncover more problems that are solvable by software, we’re more likely to build 50x more software.

This happened with the introduction of power tools to set building in Hollywood back in the day - literally this same question.

People just built bigger sets, and smaller productions became financially feasible. Ended up creating demand, not reducing it.

Not necessarily. Demand may be much higher than available supply right now. Tech companies will continue to compete, requiring spending on developers to remain competitive. Software is unlike manufacturing, in that the output is a service, not a widget. Worker productivity in general has not decreased the demand for full work weeks, despite projections in the early 20th century to the contrary. Of course, it is possible that fewer developers would be needed, but I don't think it's likely, yet.