Most company's right now want to automate all skilled labor away as quickly as possible. CEOs don't want innovation, they want a saleable product with the highest profit margin and the least risk. Removing people was always the goal.
I've worked at two jobs were in the first week I was told my goal was to automate myself so I could progress my career... Yup okay then...
I remember hearing much the same words (cf. “My job is to make myself redundant”) in 2004.
I’m fairly sure this was the goal at least as far back as when ship builders switched from high-skilled artisans to carve each pulley for the sails individually and by hand, to using jigs so that low-skilled carpenters could make a lot that were almost as good for a fraction of the price.
> when ship builders switched from high-skilled artisans to carve each pulley for the sails individually and by hand, to using jigs so that low-skilled carpenters could make a lot...
Sounds like an interesting story, do you have a link :D
I can recommend the book "Better, faster, cheaper - history of manufavturing" which covers this topic among basically manufacturing going to the, literally, stone age.
It is, but the gains to this innovation are captured almost entirely by your employer and not by you. Maybe if you're lucky you have a tiny ownership stake in the company, which if you are very lucky maybe entitles you to a tiny percentage of those gains.
One could argue that bad software engineering practices are rewarded by academia. If no one can follow your work you drive away competition so why write comments. If you regularly refactor your work no one can use your API but you. Not unit testing ensures that code is cryptic, and people will have a hard time refuting your claims due to errors. The list goes on and on.
Most of the reproducibility issues in chemistry happen in biochem in my experience(meanwhile it gets the most funding). That said, synthetic chemistry is also a problem area. Usually in synthetic chemistry it's not that the work can't be entirely reproduced, but rather that yields are fudged. That's mostly because PIs say "you can't graduate until this reaction yields 99%.". So after someone has written four papers, taught classes at minimum wage for 7 years, they fudge a 95% to a 99%. It's not okay, but neither is the way academia is structured. Super glad my discipline was elsewhere, but I saw colleagues suffer from this stuff...
Hard to get into, have to move to one of five places, usually requires security clearances (huge ordeal), extremely clean lifestyle, if your PI is evil expect zero protection, post doc can be considered entry level qualifications, can be asked to work 7 days a week. Ultimately, usually still pays less than entry level software positions offering full time remote work...
No there isn't good money in physics and chemistry or pure math. PhD chemists almost never make 6 figures even in high cost of living areas serving as a specialist. I made less as a senior scientist or a project manager in chemistry than I do as an entry level software engineer. I don't know how many physicists I've met who work minimum wage jobs, usually call centers, after their PhD/post doc (even finding a PhD is difficult, let alone completing one in 6 years).
FEM can offer money but you are competing against engineers who that's what they've done for years.
If you interviewed software engineers and data scientists right now I bet a third of them once were physical scientists/mathematicians who mostly regret their degrees or the fact they can't find survivable work using them.
>"I bet a third of them once were physical scientists/mathematicians who mostly regret their degrees"
Would mathematicians truly be regretting their degrees, if they decide to work in software? I read that mathematics one of the best degrees for a career in software engineering, as computer science is very closely related to mathematics (to the point where studies of algorithms are largely the same for mathematics and computer science students).
Theoretical parts of computer science is connected to discrete mathematics, sure. But that is only a subfield of mathematics and mostly happens already at CS departments, so you'd get a CS degree anyway.
It is also possible that aptitude for math is related to aptitude in software engineering.
However: The mathematics content of 90%+ of mathematics degrees awarded is fully irrelevant to 95%+ of software development tasks. And when that 5% task needs that some kind special mathematical insight, the people who want that task done are going to get the top professional they can find for it. Maybe the prospective math student is going to be that professional, but I don't recommend planning a career for it.
I am not saying there isn't work where some math is useful but the most commonly used applied stuff ... say, linear algebra ... is typically covered in a respectable engineering program; degree in mathematics would be superfluous. Proving theoretical properties of Hilbert spaces or measurable sets or bifurcations of dynamic systems or advances in differentiable topology or fascinating behavior of cellular automata or whatever is going to be gigantic waste of your time if you won't use it later in your career or you don't find it intrinsic motivation in itself.
And five years of gluing APIs together that help get more people to click advertisements - you'd be surprised how much math you forget. Machine learning can be better for exercising math, but most company's do not want anyone doing anything new. Same goes for physical sciences in my experience. You basically get a PhD to do associates level work. Even if you know a better way, that comes after you get ten yrs experience and have authority over projects. See the first sentence of this post for a catch 22. Bleh.
A lot of the smarter people I know have been recruited into Europe. People say "the salaries are so much lower lol", but the reality is, you often have employment laws that remove terrible occurrences as possibilities that are commonplace in America, you have access to healthcare, being a home owner is actually possible and if you don't want that renting is better overall. European culture is usually way less cut throat, and managers typically know their stuff, rather then failing upwards to half a million dollar salary's where using the word "digital" and being a brute is the main requirement.
Salary isn't everything. European engineering is a pretty different culture.
The way the us tries to prevent this is by crippling their people with student debt.
I don't have any student debt pressure, but I'm debating trying to do the same. I have a lot of friends in Denmark and no strong ties to the US. I'm about to hit my forties and it's probably now or never.
Even if you have a PhD it sucks. Everyone without a PhD is trying to one up you, and everyone with one has invented ten other arbitrary things that ensure you are human trash on arrival.
Also, imagine all the people who failed out of masters or PhD programs who end up in management and are resentful. It's a surprisingly common thing.
In the us, a few years ago, my program offered a stipend of 22,000 usd per year. Provided I taught a few classes, graded homework, tests, etc. While doing research and taking my own classes.
That was very lucky, many programs do not offer stipends and require people to take out loans.
I've seen people get fired from a academia on several occasions... When they couldn't fire someone they beat them down so regularly and buried them so deep people left or had a mental breakdown.
I've worked at two jobs were in the first week I was told my goal was to automate myself so I could progress my career... Yup okay then...