in what universe?
I've done tech support, SQA, teaching, developed test management systems, analyzed and redesigned massive data-warehouses, ported and developed statistical, engineering and other apps, know a dozen programming languages and operating systems, including Objective-C on iOS, and I test out more than a couple standard deviations above the mean. The job market looks terribly grim from here. The job ads I see are nearly all from bodyshoppers and other miscreants. I know Mensa members and people with PhDs who are severely under-employed and can't get the time of day from recruiters... except for bodyshoppers.
"In an enterprise setting" is one hamster-wheel niche out of the vast range of possibilities for computer wranglers, and it's not software product development. We used to call it "data processing" and it's always been near the bottom of the heap; something you might do for a 3 month internship when you're a sophomore, maybe OK for a B-school student who's learned a tiny little bit about programming, but not a real job for someone who's made his way through the software engineering or computer science curricula. There's very little that's creative, cutting-edge, exciting in its prospects for making lives better, or otherwise worthwhile about it.
E.g. SaaS is a mere repackaging of old ways of doing things from the 1960s, and a bad way at that. Software as a product is much better and always has been. It gives you the chance to build value on previously created value (continuous improvement and all that). With "services" no matter what you know, what you've learned/experienced, you're starting out at nothing every day, sometimes every 10 minutes; you get attaboys, but an hour later they're asking "What have you done for me lately?". You're getting nowhere. With a product, you can keep on making it better and better (well, unless you're MSFT, in which case you make it worse and worse), and then using what you learn to create additional products.
It's rare to find an outfit that has even a dozen US citizens developing their software products. Instead, there are thousands of scrabblers -- 1 and 2 and 3 person ad hoc project teams that are formed and are broken up every few months -- the vast majority not even operating at sustenance levels, let alone building careers and lives as well as products.
A good programming team requires a balance of over-lapping knowledge and specialization with at the very least 3 and optimally about a dozen. With huge projects, things may need to be distributed among about a dozen teams. Above 144 people developing a single product (or product-set) communication starts to fail.
And the products we're seeing these cross-border-bodyshopping days! Most of them are cutesy little toys, privacy violation gimmicks, fluff and outright garbage.
