Yes, I was intending to work in tech. Of course, it is oversaturated and highly competitive.
Something to consider (which will loop back to the "people-skills" aspect of your questions):
IT is changing fast at the moment due to AI.
Programming is becoming easier, and relevantly for you,
easy programming is becoming relatively easier compared to difficult/creative programming. A very good coder can be say 3x as efficient, but almost all the gain is in automating simple things. For a people who only do simpler things: one or two out of three of those roles will be "rightsized".
SysAdmin is also becoming simpler - initially (I see this in my own area) it's becoming easier to resolve technical issues that are simple for a domain expert, but difficult for IT specialists lacking deep domain-specific knowledge.
The net effect of this will be on much the same scale as the coding example.
In both cases (SysAdmin and coding), the best people get much more effective, but aren't replaceable. OTOH beginners and less talented/skilled people will have a harder time of it.
Up the value-chain, things won't change as much, at least in the short/medium term, for architects and people who write business-centric specifications for IT systems. I'd expect the implementations to get a lot better, including improvements in ways that are way out of scope for this forum.
That raises a different kind of issue for you though: that kind of work is
very dependent on social and communication skills. And you absolutely have to understand NT thinking to work effectively at that level. Not quite the same skills as Sales, but fairly close to some niches in Technical Team Leadership and Project Management that are comparable.
The message here is that entry-level and "grunt" work in IT will exist, but will almost certainly become harder to access due to AI. What won't change as much is the aspects of IT work that are AI-proof at the moment: which means either tech-creative, or people-centric.
The smaller number of low/end entry positions will tend to go to people who are judged to have the talent to get to high-end positions. Simpler work where AI is easy to leverage and effective tend to go to the excess "experienced mid-range" people.
Note that the numbers might change again: high productivity doesn't necessarily lead to lower employment in the long term. But it often does in the short term, and it's not predictable.
If you're wondering about the nature of the common thread: AI.
I'm not that interested in "positioning" AI at the moment, but I don't mind answering specific questions about it in terms of what I wrote above.
One thing worth remembering:
You have to
plan and
act based on what's real today, or is highly likely in the near future (a year or two).
As the facts change, so should the plan.
But you can't plan for what you don't know - unknowns motivate
flexibility, but
not at the cost of progress.
For an example, look at what happened with the F35, the launch gear on CVN-78, and the Zumwalt's Advanced Gun System. Being too optimistic on the timing or feasibility of something new and cool costs a lot, and
slows things down. 'Perfect is the enemy of good".