Without getting into gloomy predictions, it's clear a lot of companies will be feeling some pain soon, if they aren't already feeling it.
Software development groups at tech companies should take some medicine too -- cutting costs, becoming more competitive, improving morale, and attracting good talent at the same time.
How is that possible? Here's one way:
Unless your company is brand new, and you've got geniuses agile-ly coding your hot frog-sticker-collectors' social network, your project has a bunch of history, cruft, and mistakes in it.
It's nothing to get upset about, that's just the way of the world when developing software over the course of years in an organizational setting.
Yet many companies don't make any effort -- or actively resist any effort -- to identify those legacy problems and mitigate them. Perhaps it's fear of blame (why didn't you see this before? why didn't you say something? aren't you guys supposed to be experts?) or fear of appearing backward-looking rather than forward-looking (we'll make do with all that stuff; now can we shrink wrap and ship your latest proof-of-concept and call it next quarter's product?)
Suppose that, instead, your development group listed all the crufty bits that bug them. Stuff that maybe made sense at the time, but just isn't right any more -- wrong code, wrong architecture, wrong network protocol, wrong database, wrong format, whatever. Suppose the team got to rank these in order of annoyance factor, and impediment to productivity. Then, picking the top handful, they got to decide how to use the latest and greatest (and in many cases less expensive) technology to refactor and fix those modules.
A shortsighted manager might complain that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' -- it's a waste of resources.
But we know better than that.
In many projects a significant percentage of resources (up to two-thirds in extreme cases, based on my research and experience) can be spent wrestling with these "legacy cruft" issues. So, from a simple economics standpoint, it's definitely "broke" if you're spending $1 million per year on a dev group that could theoretically deliver the same functionality on $333,000, or 3x as much for the same $1 million.
A project that removes these old bits becomes more competitive. Why? The competition, particularly if it's a newer company or on a newer platform, isn't running with these parking brakes holding them back. Why should your team? If you can release the brake, you can deny your competitors something they definitely view as an advantage against you.
Moreover, these moves can boost morale and make your company more attractive to prospective employees in several different ways.
Getting rid of old morale-busting code makes everyone feel good.
Using a newer technology -- not as a novelty but because it's solving a real problem better than existing code -- is appealing to developers who want to learn new skills.
Doing a refactor of critical code without breaking existing code, wrecking release schedules, or introducing excessive ops downtime is a challenging and rewarding skill, kind of like working on the engine while plane is flying -- and top developers relish this kind of "black-diamond" assignment.
Finally, it tells everyone, inside the company and out, that this isn't Initech, where an engineer will have to work on 15-year-old tech for the next 15 years.