Same situation here, Copilot the only available option. But I get the feeling of things moving ahead...

AI says:

1. The default outcome: fewer people, same output (at first) When productivity jumps (e.g., 5–6 devs can now do what 10 used to), most companies do not immediately ship 10% more or make things 10% better. Instead, they usually:

Freeze or slow hiring Backfill less when people leave Quietly reduce team size over time

This happens because:

Output targets were already “good enough” Budgets are set annually, not dynamically Management rewards predictability more than ambition

So the first-order effect is cost savings, not reinvestment.

Productivity gains are initially absorbed as efficiency, not expansion.

2. The second-order effect: same headcount, more scope (but hidden) In teams that don’t shrink, the extra capacity usually goes into things that were previously underfunded:

Tech debt cleanup Reliability and on-call quality Better internal tooling Security, compliance, testing

From the outside, it looks like:

“They’re building the same amount.”

From the inside, it feels like:

“We’re finally doing things the right way.”

So yes, the product often becomes “better,” but in invisible ways.

3. Rare but real: more stuff, faster iteration Some companies do choose to build more—but only when growth pressure is high. This is common when:

The company is early-stage or mid-scale Market share matters more than margin Leadership is product- or founder-led There’s a clear backlog of revenue-linked features

In these cases, productivity gains translate into:

Faster shipping cadence More experiments Shorter time-to-market

But this requires strong alignment. Without it, extra capacity just diffuses.

4. Why “10% more” almost never happens cleanly The premise sounds linear, but software work isn’t. Reasons:

Coordination, reviews, and decision-making still bottleneck Roadmaps are constrained by product strategy, not dev hours Sales, design, legal, and operations don’t scale at the same rate

So instead of:

“We build 10% more”

You get:

“We missed fewer deadlines” “That migration finally happened” “The system breaks less often”

These matter—but they’re not headline-grabbing.

5. The long-run macro pattern Over time, across the industry:

Individual teams → shrink or hold steady Companies → maintain output with fewer engineers Industry as a whole → builds far more software than before

This is the classic productivity paradox:

Local gains → cost control Global gains → explosion of software everywhere

Think:

More apps, not bigger teams More features, not more people More companies, not fatter ones

6. The uncomfortable truth If productivity improves and:

Demand is flat Competition isn’t forcing differentiation Leadership incentives favor cost control

Then yes—companies are content to build the same amount with fewer people. Not because they’re lazy, but because:

Efficiency is easier to measure than ambition Savings are safer than bets Headcount reductions show up cleanly on financials

One of the most insightful HN comments I've read in years. Thank you! I'm curious about what you've read and are reading.

ha ha, this is the response from Microsoft Copolit when I asked:

If 5 or 6 software developers can do the work of 10, do companies choose to build 10% more stuff? Do they make their existing stuff 10% better? Or are they content to continue building the same amount with 10% fewer people?

The future is so bright we need to wear shades...

Yes. Excel macros mostly these days. Used to do Access database projects but they are slowly being phased out by Power BI.

"We have more stuff; they have more time"

What say you Hackers? would you trade more stuff for more time?

Absolutely. I've already traded the 'stuff' for more _space_. That alone is a huge mental health booster.

I don't think there is any different brain chemistry at work. It is just human nature to want to do something with their wealth, for good or ill or whatever.

It is more likely that the people are naturally acquisitive and the ones that succeed then feel the need to continue to do things when the best thing for them and us is for them to stop and just enjoy their wealth.

Listening to Lex Fridman's podcast with tech bros and billionaires, kind of easy to see what Paul Krugman is talking about.

Is it the death of expertise? Can tech billionaires do it all?

There is no such thing. And if you keep wanting such a thing, you will be scammed out of your money…

A falling population is a problem for China as a military power. But if you’re thinking about the Chinese economy, it’s much less of a problem.