A large amount of programmers are hired just building crud apps. Display data from a database and write it back with a validation. Etc.
There is very little innovation going on. And most companies do everything they can to stick to standard patterns, technologies etc where all the risk is removed and known in advance.
Often "good" programmers are worse - they over complicate the architecture, go off on tangents, try to solve problems the business didn't ask for either etc.
Out of every single reason given for why the bootcamp era was justified the only one I believe is that there was so much focus on it because bigger players wanted to flood the market with cheap supply and drive salaries downward.
This is not any different with offshoring before, and AI now.
True, and the explanations about "solving big problems" are each engineer's personal brand and justification for having a job. I'm sure some of those people exist, but they probably aren't the ones doing it rote on forums.
> they over complicate the architecture, go off on tangents, try to solve problems the business didn't ask for either etc.
because they've been bitten plenty times before by business telling them that certain requirements are not needed, just to be told 2 weeks later that they are...
There is very little innovation going on. And most companies do everything they can to stick to standard patterns, technologies etc where all the risk is removed and known in advance.
Often "good" programmers are worse - they over complicate the architecture, go off on tangents, try to solve problems the business didn't ask for either etc.
So bootcamps filled a need.