That would defeat the purpose. The whole point is to reduce costs by getting a cheap junior dev and having them operate AI to produce the same or better result for far less
So the point is to use technological advancements only to increase company profit and not pass any on to the actual workers. If a junior costs 1/4 of a senior, they could easily paid more from the 3/4s saved (since they're also more valuable now), but I guess shareholder millions come first.
Of course. I'm running a business, not a welfare program
What a way to summarize the decades of apathy that led to the current state of wealth inequality.
Apathy? More like the fact that the majority of people are too lazy, not motivated enough, not willing to take risks, and go out and build something of their own that results in wealth, and prefer to sit safe as someones employee, complaining about 'wealth inequality'
If they + AI are a replacement for senior devs, shouldn't they be paid accordingly?