AI Did Not Just Take Jobs — It Destroyed the Career Ladder for Young Developers

The headline numbers from early 2026 are striking. Over 30,000 tech workers lost their jobs in the first six weeks of the year. Salesforce cut 4,000 customer support roles after AI handled half of its support interactions. Amazon, Pinterest, and Autodesk each cited AI efficiency gains explicitly as the reason for workforce reductions.

These numbers get covered because they are easy to count. What is harder to count, and considerably more alarming, is what has been happening at the bottom of the career ladder since 2019.

Hiring of new graduates at the fifteen largest US technology companies dropped 55% between 2019 and 2025. Entry-level positions, defined as roles requiring three years of experience or less, fell from 43% of all tech job postings to 28%. That is not a temporary dip. That is a structural shift that happened before the most recent wave of layoffs, before most enterprises deployed any serious AI tools, and before any of the companies making those cuts were citing AI as the reason.

**What the entry-level collapse actually means**

The standard career path for a developer used to follow a recognizable pattern. You graduate or complete a bootcamp. You get a junior position doing work that senior developers do not want to do: bug fixes, documentation, writing unit tests, building internal tools, handling the smaller tickets. You spend two or three years learning the codebase, learning how software actually gets shipped, learning that the gap between your CS education and production engineering is vast. You get promoted.

That path depended on companies needing large numbers of people doing junior-level work. The economics worked because that junior-level work had to get done, it was cheaper to hire juniors than seniors, and seniors needed juniors to handle the lower-priority tasks.

AI assistance has been quietly eroding this for years. When a senior engineer can use Cursor or GitHub Copilot to do in two hours what a junior engineer would spend a day on, the business case for hiring the junior weakens. When code review can be partly automated, when documentation writes itself, when internal tools can be scaffolded in a morning, the work that justified the junior hire starts to disappear.

The result is a generation of developers who are technically capable but structurally locked out of the positions that were always the entry point to real experience. The roles are simply not being created at the same rate.

**The experience paradox**

Here is the cruel paradox: the tools that make senior engineers more productive do not make it easier to become a senior engineer. If anything they make it harder.

The junior roles that were tedious from a senior perspective were not tedious from a junior perspective. They were how you learned. You learned by reading code you did not write, by debugging systems you did not design, by asking questions and getting them answered in the context of real production problems. You built tacit knowledge that textbooks and courses cannot give you.

AI coding tools are excellent at the kinds of tasks that used to be entry-level developer work. They are not excellent at knowing when to use them, how to verify their output, when a technically correct solution is wrong for the specific codebase and team, or how to navigate the organizational politics of shipping software in a large company. Those things are still learned the old way, by doing them. But the opportunity to do them is narrowing.

**What companies are actually hiring for**

If you look at what is growing in tech hiring right now, rather than what is shrinking, a pattern emerges. Companies are hiring for roles that involve working with AI systems rather than being replaced by them: AI engineers, prompt engineers, model fine-tuning specialists, AI safety and evaluation roles. They are hiring people who can manage the AI systems that are doing what junior developers used to do.

The problem is that those roles are not entry-level. They require a foundation of software engineering understanding that you build by doing exactly the junior work that is disappearing.

There are also roles in areas where AI genuinely struggles: complex systems integration, technical leadership, client-facing work that requires human judgment, security and compliance in regulated industries. These are important jobs. They are also jobs that require five to ten years of experience, and the pipeline that produces those experienced engineers is the one currently under pressure.

**The picture outside the US**

The entry-level collapse is most severe in the US, where large tech companies are concentrated and where AI tooling adoption has been fastest among engineering teams. But the trend is spreading.

In India, where a significant portion of the world's software engineering work happens, the early signs are similar. Junior developer hiring at major IT services firms is softening. The firms that built their business model around large teams of junior engineers doing routine work are under the most pressure. The firms adapting toward higher-complexity, AI-augmented work are doing fine, but they need fewer people.

For developers currently in the early stages of their career, the practical reality is that the standard playbook, get a junior job, grind for three years, get promoted, no longer reliably works. The junior job market is tighter than it has been in twenty years, and the tightness is structural rather than cyclical.

**What you can actually do about it**

The honest answer is that the situation is genuinely difficult, and anyone telling you there is an easy adaptation is selling something.

What does appear to work: specializing earlier than developers historically did. The generalist junior developer is the most replaceable by AI tools. The developer who goes deep in a specific domain, security, healthcare systems, infrastructure at scale, embedded systems, fintech compliance, is both harder to replace and more attractive to companies that genuinely need domain expertise.

Contributing to open source or building public projects matters more now than it did when you could demonstrate capability through a traditional job. Your GitHub is your portfolio, and a portfolio that shows you can ship real things is more compelling than a resume with a junior title that fewer companies are creating.

The tools themselves are worth learning properly, not as a replacement for understanding what you are building, but as a multiplier on the understanding you have. The developers thriving right now are not the ones ignoring AI tools and the ones who can use them while retaining full ownership of the system they are building.

None of this changes the structural problem. The entry-level trap is real, it is data-backed, and it is not going away. But the developers who treat it as a fact to navigate rather than a shock to wait out are the ones building careers anyway.