I don't see "less people" as an upcoming IT problem, as most places I look are getting more IT people, as more parts of their business become dependent on computers. I haven't seen any evidence of that changing, and believe it or not, the average business still has plenty of migration to digital means left ahead of them. (Where I work, manual punch card time clocks are still used.)
Look at the cloudification or automation in Windows Products - Windows Updates are pushed through Intune over the internet, Exchange, SharePoint are all through Office 365. Entire On-Premise Datacenters are pushed to Azure.
Yes, someone still needs to manage all of this but you need a lot less people. Or you ship these "trade jobs" to low cost areas like India.
People keep stating "you need less people" with the cloud like its an objective truth, when there's really no evidence of it, and I'd argue its patently false. You end up paying both your own IT and the cloud providers' IT, for a product that also doesn't work when your internet is slow or down.
The main thing moved to the cloud where I work leads us receiving and handling the same number of support tickets as when it was on-prem. The difference is, now some tickets we can't fix, and have to wait for the cloud provider. Service is worse, and it doesn't really save us any time.
A lot of cloud solutions offer an on-prem option. The tools are the same, it's just a matter of it running itself in the building or running itself somewhere else. A lot of times, running something on-prem means spinning up literally the same software you could have them host for you.
(Also: Windows Updates also aren't some crazy painful manual process that Intune fixed. You can just tell WSUS to approve everything automatically if you want, and just as similarly, you can manage Intune more granularly which takes up your IT staff's time and effort.)
You need less people with cloud is objectively true, as long as you do it properly.
If you're simply running EC2 instances with your same off the shelf software, you're not doing it right, but you'll still eliminate your entire datacenter physical facilities team and server install/rack & stack/replace failed disks team.
If you do it properly, it's incredible what you can do. I have a client with applications running in Ireland, Frankfurt, Singapore, Tokyo, and the US, totaling around 50 EC2 instances running containerized workloads that automatically heal, APIs that are accessible globally and won't go down unless 6 AWS regions simultaneously fail, about 30 static websites, DNS hosting for a dozen domains, monitoring, auditing, and log analytics for all of the above. I set it up in about 3 months as a single engineer and manage it all with about 8 hours a week of total effort. The cost to my client is basically the same as hiring a single senior engineer, but they're running infrastructure that would have taken a team of 3 shifts of IT professionals without the cloud.
