>>54319011
No, because software can fuck up, and at that point you need accountants to verify the information. Even verification algorithms could go wrong somewhere, and if you put all your trust in it, you could get in trouble with the law

>>54319011
Yes absolutely. The next generation of legislation and accounting standards regarding companies and finance will change the way accounting is taught and practised and will namely massively decrease the number of human actors required to manage the books of large scale organizations. The writing is on the wall.

>>54319032
You are fucking retarded.

Software can easily replace an accountant if it doesn't replace them in 5 years I will be shocked. Turbotax alone saves me more time then an accountant.

>>54319011
Depends on your responsibilities and tasks. A lot will continously get (partially) automated, taking work off of you and/or making your life easier for you.

>>54319032
>because software can fuck up
all of this so called "software fuck ups" are accountant fault.
Making this job automated actually makes no errors.

One of the most important rules of an accountant is financial planning. So no.

>>54319201
*roles

>>54319011
What does an accountant do anyway? Last I checked all they did was bookkeeping, which computers completely blow humans out of the water, and reporting, which, again, computers replace humans after the humans design the reports.

>>54319032

>software can fuck up
... but human accountants can't?

>at that point you need accountants to verify the information. Even verification algorithms could go wrong somewhere
So what magic exactly would the human accountants use to "verify" the information if not for the very same verification algorithms that the accounting software implements?

>if you put all your trust in it, you could get in trouble with the law
Because bone and flesh accountants can't get you in trouble with the law, amirite?

>>54319011

Accountant here, it already has. Like 80% of the work an accountant did 20 years ago is already performed by software.


I'm currently taking a new degree because as a profession there is nothing you do that someone with a quantitative understanding of economics can't do.

>tfw i'm applying to do accounting & finance at uni next year or the year after

did i fuck up?

Holy shit this fucking thread.

STEM babbies whining because they fell for a meme and now can't compete with literally a billion pajeets.

No, you won't replace us with your toys, you geeks. Keep sour-graping our profession all you want, we're making on average as much as ten of you guys combined.

And best part is our CEOs are not pajeets lmao!

>>54319079
Accountants do more than prepare personal take returns. H&R Block employees are not accountants. They get like 2 weeks of training and their software does the rest.

>>54319201
this

>>54319190
someone needs to be there to take responsibility for when there is a fuck up

>>54319280
>someone needs to be there to take responsibility for when there is a fuck up
So accountants are paid scapegoats?

>>54319011
It is important to note that computer related jobs are also on the line. Software Engeneering for example. Every repetetive task can be automated at some point. You're only "safe" if your field requires complex analytical problem solving and/or creativity.

>>54319300
just like pharmacists

>>54319308

Not really. No one is safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

>>54319201
uh nope. accountants can no longer give financial advice without that separate certification.

Not unless people write programs that automatically dodge taxes for you.

Tax dodging is big business.

>>54319201
http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/Industry-Topics/Financial-advisory-services/Becoming-a-financial-planner.aspx

myth busted

>>54319259
yes but as small and large businesses embrace (ironically enough) IS/IT solutions such as ERPs with a finance module, POS systems, zero cloud accounting system etc... the number of accountants required to do the job drastically reduces.
when the job goes from hiring a guy to sort through your receipts find relevant information, create a report and file your tax report to just "download the FYXX ending balance sheet statement and p/l statement, login to e-tax, copy and paste, submit" most people are not going to go to an accountant.

>>54319318
Artificial intelligence at its current state can not even try to do problem solving in the real world. Eventually (in many, many years) no one is safe, that is correct. But for now computers can only recreate repetetive or specific tasks.

>>54319308
We're always gonna need engineers. Whether it's mechanical, electrical, or chemical. Nobody wants to sit through the years of math, science, and physics to create the ships that will carry iron and other resources from the asteroid fields

>>54319341
not quite but technology will help organizations be able to manage their tax liability efficiently, as in not having to spend money to stay compliant to the tax code. just having to pay tax. that in it self will reduce the 'tax burden' for many people.

>>54319398
I cannot speak for real engineering fields but software engineering seems to be doomed thinking about how programming language design hasn't change in about 20 years and how UML-Models can be translated into code automatically.

When it comes to mechanical, electrical and chemical engineers I guess you are right, since they do require analytical problem solving.

>>54319434
its a yes and no kind of situation.
yes, as more and more people adopt cloud solutions/software that's managed externally the number of software engineers required will decrease but there are no limits with software engineering. its not like you guys were required due to bureaucratic red tape and undecipherable legislation. you can make whatever you want, you can serious bank and all you have to do is make something that people enjoy just once. As long as there are humans there will always be a feed for them.

>>54319300
>>54319312
we don't entrust computer programs with that much responsibility; at least not without giving them a lot of human oversight/control from a person who's proven themselves to be a reliable authority on the subject. Real accountants and pharmacists have more to lose by making mistakes than do people in most other jobs

>>54319467
and while plenty of companies hire panjeets, plenty of companies right now need good highly capable software engineers

>>54319472
they are only there as long as there is some difficult to understand legislation which the normal person is intimidated by.
accountants make their money purely on this. normal peoples fear of being fucked by the tax man and they technically are taxing you for paying tax. with the rapid development of new technology it is really just a matter of time before the government says enough, we want to remove this inefficiency in taxation and make it dead easy for people to pay taxes. if individuals no longer had to pay the tax to pay tax it would be game over for a fuckload of accountants.

No because a human being can be convinced to cook the books and find loopholes. A machine will have a harder time with that.