Is software development a fast-growing job in the United States?
Is software development a fast-growing job in the United States?
Yes, but more slowly than the number everyone quotes. The widely cited figure — 15% growth and about 129,200 openings a year — is not a projection about software developers. It covers three jobs bundled into one occupation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes software developers on their own, and that narrower series projects 7% or higher growth and about 115,200 openings a year.
Both figures are real, both come from the same agency, and they answer different questions.
What the 15% figure actually counts
The series is named “Software Developers, Quality Assurance Analysts, and Testers”. Those are one occupation to the Bureau and three jobs to a person choosing a career.
That matters, because manual software testing is among the roles most exposed to automation right now. The headline growth figure for “software developers” includes a job whose outlook is materially worse than the average it is folded into.
The two rows, side by side
| Series | Growth, 2024–2034 | Openings a year |
|---|---|---|
| Software Developers, QA Analysts, and Testers | 15% | ~129,200 |
| Software developers alone (SOC 15-1252) | 7% or higher | ~115,200 |
Software developers alone had base-year employment of 1,693,800 in 2024.
Where these come from
Both are grade 1 under this book’s source hierarchy: a body with the power to compel an answer, and nothing to sell you.
bls-swe-outlook-2026— Occupational Outlook Handbook, software developers. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htmbls-employment-projections-2024-2034— Employment Projections, 2024–2034. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Both records, with their full caveats, are in the free source bibliography under those ids.
What this does not show
Nobody lied, and neither number is wrong. A bundled occupation is a normal statistical practice, and the Bureau names the bundle plainly in the series title. The failure is in the quoting, not in the source.
A projection is not a measurement. Both rows model a decade ahead from assumptions the publisher states. Neither can be checked the way a count can.
Most of the openings are churn, not new jobs. The annual openings figure combines growth with replacing people who leave the occupation. That is true of both rows.
This says nothing about any other country. It is a United States series, and pay and hiring evidence outside the US and Western Europe is thin to absent — which is itself recorded in the gap register.
Why this is on a page of its own
Because it is the clearest example of the one question this book is built around: what exactly was measured?
The number is quoted constantly, by people with no reason to mislead anyone, who simply read a headline and not the name of the series under it. Checking that name took one click and changed the answer by half.
If you quote either figure, quote the series name with it.
Corrections to this page are welcome, and the address is on the corrections page.