
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


In 1971, Boeing laid off 44,000 engineers in 18 months. The aerospace industry is still paying for it — they're projecting a shortage of over a million engineers by 2030, and the cohort that would now be the senior bench was simply never hired.
Last year, S&P 500 companies cut 400,000 jobs — the first net decline since 2016 — and the specific pattern of who's being cut, and why, looks uncomfortably familiar. At firms that adopted AI, junior employment fell 7 to 10% within six quarters. Senior employment kept rising. The pipeline isn't slowing. It's stopping.
In this episode of In The Loop, I'm working through the data on junior employment at AI-adopting firms, the economic logic that makes cutting entry-level roles feel rational, and why I think that logic is setting up a shortage that will look obvious in hindsight.
I also take on Tim O'Reilly's counter-argument — his historical case that every programming wave expanded demand rather than destroyed it — and explain why I think he's right about 2035 and wrong about the cohort that's supposed to get there.
⏭️ Episode highlights
(01:15) – The Boeing billboard and what it cost
(03:00) – 400,000 jobs: where the cuts are concentrated
(05:00) – Why junior work is separable — and senior work isn't(07:00) – The radiology lesson: why strong bundles hold
(08:45) – O'Reilly's wave argument and the Jevons paradox
(11:30) – Where the optimistic case runs out of road
(13:00) – The 43-point gap: atrophy you can't feel
(14:45) – IBM, Publicis, and who's betting on the pipeline
🔗 Links & resources
If you enjoyed this episode, rate, follow, and share. It helps others stay ahead of the latest AI trends.
🤝 We're social
Stay in the loop, even when you're not listening to this podcast.
Jack Houghton
Mindset AI
By Jack HoughtonIn 1971, Boeing laid off 44,000 engineers in 18 months. The aerospace industry is still paying for it — they're projecting a shortage of over a million engineers by 2030, and the cohort that would now be the senior bench was simply never hired.
Last year, S&P 500 companies cut 400,000 jobs — the first net decline since 2016 — and the specific pattern of who's being cut, and why, looks uncomfortably familiar. At firms that adopted AI, junior employment fell 7 to 10% within six quarters. Senior employment kept rising. The pipeline isn't slowing. It's stopping.
In this episode of In The Loop, I'm working through the data on junior employment at AI-adopting firms, the economic logic that makes cutting entry-level roles feel rational, and why I think that logic is setting up a shortage that will look obvious in hindsight.
I also take on Tim O'Reilly's counter-argument — his historical case that every programming wave expanded demand rather than destroyed it — and explain why I think he's right about 2035 and wrong about the cohort that's supposed to get there.
⏭️ Episode highlights
(01:15) – The Boeing billboard and what it cost
(03:00) – 400,000 jobs: where the cuts are concentrated
(05:00) – Why junior work is separable — and senior work isn't(07:00) – The radiology lesson: why strong bundles hold
(08:45) – O'Reilly's wave argument and the Jevons paradox
(11:30) – Where the optimistic case runs out of road
(13:00) – The 43-point gap: atrophy you can't feel
(14:45) – IBM, Publicis, and who's betting on the pipeline
🔗 Links & resources
If you enjoyed this episode, rate, follow, and share. It helps others stay ahead of the latest AI trends.
🤝 We're social
Stay in the loop, even when you're not listening to this podcast.
Jack Houghton
Mindset AI