Will you still have a job in 10 years?

[Tristan]

Will your job still exist in 10 years time? How much thought do you give to what you need to do today to ensure you’re still employed at the right level a decade from now? What’s the biggest change you see coming that affects your career?

(This post brought to you by 3am Existential Dread)

[bjn]

I’m 60 and semi retired, I worked as a skilled software engineer, currently doing some consulting and working on a few pet projects that may make me some money. 10 years from now I’ll be even more retired, if needs be I can continue to consult (LLMs have a long way to go before they full replace software engineers, many companies are going to be in a world of pain rather soon because of that).

[dyqik]

Physicist jobs will continue to exist.

I'm working on projects that will start observations in mid 2030s, and beyond, so my specific tasks will continue to exist.

However, I work for a trust instrumentality of the United States, and my projects are US government funded, so who the f.ck knows.

On the other hand, many elements of what I do are directly related to quantum computing experiments, so there's that area. I've also worked on nuclear fusion experiments, so that's employment for at least 50 years.

[discovolante]

Tbh I think anyone whose jobs have been primarily dependant on public funding and/or charitable grants will have experienced almost constant existential dread for the entirety of their careers. So will either have developed a solid insurance policy/back up career or will feel like being able to think 10 years ahead is an unimaginable luxury. I'm sure this applies to many other sectors too though.

[shpalman]

I'm also involved in quantum computing, but I expect that in ten years' time the quantum hype wave will have passed, just like the nano hype wave 20 years ago and the graphene hype wave 10 years ago. Maybe we'll still be doing the same things in the lab here, finding ways to pretend they're applicable to whatever the next hype wave is.

[Martin Y]

That's all too recognisable, Disco. I'm 60 and could walk away but somehow my job, indeed my whole small department, keeps surviving the axe, swish after swish.

I work on the engineering side of radio outside broadcasts. The TV sound part of my job disappeared when the whole department got sold off years ago, and that's all commercial facilities and freelance craft staff now. There's no money in radio so we're not commercially viable to sell off, nor a resource you can hire in, and we soldier on.

IP infrastructure has encroached further and further into what we do but still somebody has to go to an event and actually collect the content being created before funneling it into the nearest internet. Everyone after that can work from home if they like.

Eventually someone in management will say "Radio? Do we still do that? Did you mean podcasts?" and they'll shut the whole thing down to save tuppence. I expect to be gone before then.

[JQH]

I'm retired but my occupation (education lab tech.) will probably still exist though school managers looking for places to make cuts may decide that the practical requirements of science courses can be met by watching youtube videos.

[IvanV]

Tbh I think anyone whose jobs have been primarily dependant on public funding and/or charitable grants will have experienced almost constant existential dread for the entirety of their careers. So will either have developed a solid insurance policy/back up career or will feel like being able to think 10 years ahead is an unimaginable luxury. I'm sure this applies to many other sectors too though.

In a much less insecure situation, nevertheless similar forces operate. I have mostly worked for employers that mostly serve public sector clients.

The global financial crisis, really taking off in 2008, massively reduced incomes in the private sector, resulted in lots of new competitors, as the people serving the private sector crowded into the field supplying public sector work.

Then David Cameron came along and stopped many public bodies spending money on our services for a year. My employer at the time had to reduce headcount. My contribution to that was reducing to part time. But in reality I worked full time at a part time salary, trying to get enough work in. We were successful in expanding into overseas work, especially getting work from the European Commission at that time. I also expanded my skills, as what I had been doing no longer got enough work in, and I had to help with other kinds of projects.

Eventually working full time at a part time salary became institutionalised as a lower full time salary, after a couple of job changes. In fact, I've never got back to the salary I had in 2007, even forgetting inflation. And in part that is because the output of economists with higher degrees from universities has greatly increased, competing down the salary for people of my education. I know some other economists roughly in my cohort who have also been through processes of eventually having to take jobs at a markedly lower salary. This can be going to work for the public sector organisations who were previously their clients. I tried to do that in around 2008/9 or so, but everyone was doing that as companies like mine downsized. Fortunately I had been very careful with my money during my more remunerative periods, and was well able to live on 30% less money.

[Opti]

There will always be people like me who never really had any solid idea of a job. I first started at the old MAFF on a sandwich course for an HND in microbiology. Once I got that done I Ieft because everyone I knew seemed to be making more money than me and having more fun. So it was music through most of the 70s with a few of my mates (lots of them now passed, sadly) making music and buying stuff and selling it at a profit - yes, some of the 'it' was drugs, but not all. Architectural salvage from derelict houses being demolished in the early 70s. That was a really good earner.

In 1976 my son was born, so I carried on doing the same stuff, but on a less 'dodgy' basis. In 1979 I realised that I needed to really have decent, regular income so I got an office job (through another mate) with a large cargo airline at Heathrow. I progressed very fast in that 'career' such that on night shifts I was second-in-command of the entire operation of the place. Not including Operations and aircraft management. But my old habits died hard and me and yet another mate who just happened to be in charge of an export agent in Lagos. Between us we cooked up a plan to use our resources to import something herbal. Heathrow was not known at that time as 'Thiefrow' for no reason. Naturally, we both left our jobs soon after - and split from our wives. I always[/i] gave my ex-wife decent money for our son, and maintained long contact with m son. When he was ..... not necessary to tell.
Then me and another mate formed a Classic Alfa-Romeo workshop/garage that was really good fun and a payer.
We both retired opposite ends of the country an the end of the Millenium and that's it. Money we've both made since has come from buying nice houses in need of a lot of work and lived in them while we worked on them, lived in them for a few years then moved on to the next one.

It hasn't all been good times, we've had our share of leaner times but we've both enjoyed the ride.

There will always be chancers.

You might have noticed that I had that big fat one before typing this. I don't even know why I posted it.

Disculpe. Por favor.

sh.t that was strong.

[marbling]

I'm an NHS virologist, and before that was a lab specialist in STIs. So the requirement for people like me shouldn’t be going anywhere. However, our visibility, and therefore perceived importance, to the people with the purse-strings has always been a bit precarious and as the public sector tightens belts things could get worrying financially. I've been doing this since 1993 though so there’s a bit of plus ca change about it all. Planning to retire in 2037, so if the next pandemic could wait until after then (or at least not be viral) I'd appreciate it!

[Gfamily]

My last position before taking early retirement was as a Business Analyst - working on the interface between the business and the IT teams so that the latter know what the former want, and the former know what the latter can or can't do.

I have the feeling that that role will continue to be needed.

[bolo]

Before I retired a few months ago, I worked for the U.S. Congress as a policy analyst, providing Members and their staff with nonpartisan information and analysis on various aspects of science and technology policy. I don't think that role will go away, but it will evolve. Thirty years ago, we got tens of thousands of requests each year for basic factual information, provided by a large staff of reference librarians. Staffers now find much of that sort of information themselves online. I imagine that trend will continue. But there will still be a demand for deeper analysis, and for analysts who know stuff and can explain it to staffers who don't.

[Chris Preston]

As I have instigated a succession planning exercise, I can state that my job will exist in 10 years, but I will not be doing it. I have finally obtained sufficient leverage to get the University to commit to maintaining my position.

[Imrael]

My last gig pre retirement was managing server infrastructure for a SAAS software application. Was a mixture of cloud service and datacentre-hosted, and had a big element of security/compliance.

I think that basic role will exist in 10 years (unless "the fall" turns out not to mean autumn) and while change will be substantial it might be fairly incremental in nature. For career longevity I think I'd deepen my understanding of cost management and financial risks.

[Tristan]

My last position before taking early retirement was as a Business Analyst - working on the interface between the business and the IT teams so that the latter know what the former want, and the former know what the latter can or can't do.

I have the feeling that that role will continue to be needed.

I’m currently sponsor (supplier side) on a large SaaS implementation where the customer has insisted we work with BAs rather than giving us direct access to subject matter experts in the business (our usual way of working). What would usually have taken us 8 days to do with SMEs (system design) started in October and finished last week.

All because IT insisted on leading the project there than the business. I can see how that might make sense for a Dynamics implementation across an entire organisation, but for a best of breed SaaS solution selected for a particular part of the business it really doesn’t!

[Tristan]

So, I’m a Professional Services Director for a SaaS company serving a specific sector. My team does mainly implementations alongside other project and managed services work.

I suspect implementations will look very different in 10 years time. Interoperability will become much more plug & play, things like data migrations will become easier and less technical, and overall the selection and implementation will become more self-serve.

I’m not sure where that leaves me and my team.

[discovolante]

Tbh I think anyone whose jobs have been primarily dependant on public funding and/or charitable grants will have experienced almost constant existential dread for the entirety of their careers. So will either have developed a solid insurance policy/back up career or will feel like being able to think 10 years ahead is an unimaginable luxury. I'm sure this applies to many other sectors too though.

In a much less insecure situation, nevertheless similar forces operate. I have mostly worked for employers that mostly serve public sector clients.

The global financial crisis, really taking off in 2008, massively reduced incomes in the private sector, resulted in lots of new competitors, as the people serving the private sector crowded into the field supplying public sector work.

Then David Cameron came along and stopped many public bodies spending money on our services for a year. My employer at the time had to reduce headcount. My contribution to that was reducing to part time. But in reality I worked full time at a part time salary, trying to get enough work in. We were successful in expanding into overseas work, especially getting work from the European Commission at that time. I also expanded my skills, as what I had been doing no longer got enough work in, and I had to help with other kinds of projects.

Eventually working full time at a part time salary became institutionalised as a lower full time salary, after a couple of job changes. In fact, I've never got back to the salary I had in 2007, even forgetting inflation. And in part that is because the output of economists with higher degrees from universities has greatly increased, competing down the salary for people of my education. I know some other economists roughly in my cohort who have also been through processes of eventually having to take jobs at a markedly lower salary. This can be going to work for the public sector organisations who were previously their clients. I tried to do that in around 2008/9 or so, but everyone was doing that as companies like mine downsized. Fortunately I had been very careful with my money during my more remunerative periods, and was well able to live on 30% less money.

That sucks Ivan.

I feel like I may well be the youngest person on this forum; 40 is on the horizon but I'm not quite there yet. It took me a while to get going in my career because I graduated not too long before the financial crash and then once I'd completed my postgraduate/vocational studies the government brought in enormous cuts to the sector I wanted to work in. Then a few years ago I moved to Scotland and had to requalify again, which set me back another couple of years. So although financially I have absolutely nothing to complain about in the grand scheme of things, I'm not quite in the position a lot of peers my age are. Hey ho. Anyway I have also just started a new job in the same profession but in an entirely different sector so I am having to learn a lot of new stuff from scratch. I've gone from one fairly niche sector into something even more niche, simply because I wanted to to be honest. You only live once. My new job is funded for a few years and I have no idea what will happen after that, as there is no way the work we will be doing will generate enough income to cover our own costs. I'm counting on a hope that a combination of now having sufficient experience under my belt along with working in sectors that are small enough to know and be on good terms with plenty of people in it, but just about large enough that new jobs will keep coming up from time to time, will tide me over. Perhaps not the smartest financial planning and I may regret it, but to me it's meaningful work and that's very important to me as well.

[discovolante]

That's all too recognisable, Disco. I'm 60 and could walk away but somehow my job, indeed my whole small department, keeps surviving the axe, swish after swish.

I work on the engineering side of radio outside broadcasts. The TV sound part of my job disappeared when the whole department got sold off years ago, and that's all commercial facilities and freelance craft staff now. There's no money in radio so we're not commercially viable to sell off, nor a resource you can hire in, and we soldier on.

IP infrastructure has encroached further and further into what we do but still somebody has to go to an event and actually collect the content being created before funneling it into the nearest internet. Everyone after that can work from home if they like.

Eventually someone in management will say "Radio? Do we still do that? Did you mean podcasts?" and they'll shut the whole thing down to save tuppence. I expect to be gone before then.

Keep ducking and diving from that axe until you retire, that's the spirit!

[FlammableFlower]

I'm in a similar position to Chris - at the whims of University management and the education sector in general. UK universities are in a bit of a fragile moment - especially Chemistry: depts have closed in the last year; Reading has ostensibly survived, but in name only (it's been subsumed and reorganised, lost lots of staff and now no longer submitting anything to the Chemistry REF. If you don't do anything related to health/pharma then you're out; several others have had big reorganisations that have essentially elbowed out staff. Then there's the general fun of cost cutting in higher education - it's easier to count the universities that aren't going through redundancy drives. Chemistry is an expensive subject: high consumables and running costs of the fume cupboards (we're the second highest energy consumer on our campus), so it's frequently one of the easy targets if senior management want to cut costs. A lot of unis heavily spent when the Tories got

So far, where I am has been able to avoid any of this, but there's a constant fear that the axe might fall if things get tight.

On the question of the topic title, I suspect people will still need chemistry lecturers in 10 years, but how many remains to be seen. So will I have a job in 10 years? Dunno.

[jimbob]

I reckon my type of job* is safe for maybe 10 years, but wouldn't be sure for 20 years.


*(Power) Semiconductor design and development with a bit of short term R&D.

[TopBadger]

Just remember that the "AI takes everyone's job" thing also ends in everything becoming free - because no-one will be earning any money to pay for anything.

[bjn]

Just remember that the "AI takes everyone's job" thing also ends in everything becoming free - because no-one will be earning any money to pay for anything.

Assuming that AIs can actually do what the hype artists are touting, the people that control the AIs won't care about anyone else. We'll be less than peasants.

[Grumble]

These new mechanised looms are going to destroy the jobs of our artisan weavers.

[bjn]

Scraping the worlds knowledge without paying anyone for its use, including copyrighted material, and selling it back to us is new form of enclosure. It's not like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which paid for people to write their articles. The likes of Google want to present you with AI generated content assembled from the uncredited works of others, they don’t want you to click on a link which takes you away from their website. In such a world, why would anyone write anything new if it was going to be immediately stolen from you and any benefit going to the data thieves?

[jimbob]

Scraping the worlds knowledge without paying anyone for its use, including copyrighted material, and selling it back to us is new form of enclosure. It's not like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which paid for people to write their articles. The likes of Google want to present you with AI generated content assembled from the uncredited works of others, they don’t want you to click on a link which takes you away from their website. In such a world, why would anyone write anything new if it was going to be immediately stolen from you and any benefit going to the data thieves?

Well said