The layoffs weren’t random. The hype didn’t save anyone. And the survivors all seem to share the same boring, uncomfortable skills.
In 2025, tech didn’t just have layoffs. It had a vibe shift.
One day your feed was full of AI demos, salary flexes, and “just shipped” posts. The next day it was quiet. Too quiet. Open-to-work banners everywhere. Group chats going dark. People who taught you half your stack suddenly… gone.
126,000 jobs vanished, and not in a dramatic crypto-crash way. More like a slow server timeout. No panic headline. Just a lot of “position eliminated” emails and calendar invites that didn’t end well.
The scary part wasn’t the number. It was who got hit.
Not just juniors. Not just recruiters. Seniors. Staff engineers. People with resumes that used to be cheat codes. Turns out knowing the right tools wasn’t enough anymore. Some skills aged like milk. Others barely noticed the crash.
And no, this isn’t another “learn AI or die” rant. That take is already outdated.
TL;DR:
Tech didn’t stop hiring. It stopped hiring fragile skillsets. The devs who survived 2025 weren’t louder, trendier, or better at prompts. They were harder to replace.
Here’s what actually held value when the floor dropped and why these five skills are still worth learning in 2026, even if the market stays weird.
What actually broke in 2025 (and why it wasn’t just AI)
Everyone wants a clean villain. AI is convenient. Feels good to point at a robot and say “that thing took my job.”
But that’s not what actually happened.
2025 was the year tech realized it had been running on leverage fumes. Cheap money disappeared. Growth-at-all-costs quietly died. Suddenly every company started asking the same uncomfortable question: what do these teams actually own?
And a lot of roles didn’t have a good answer.
Whole layers of work existed just to glue abstractions together. Frontends that only talked to APIs they didn’t control. Ops roles babysitting systems that cloud providers had already automated better. Internal tools built to manage problems created by other internal tools.
AI didn’t replace those jobs. Efficiency exposed them.
Once leadership cared about margins again, “good enough” wasn’t good enough. If your role couldn’t clearly explain impact, cost, and failure modes, it was fragile. Not because you were bad because the system no longer tolerated redundancy.
This is why the layoffs felt different.
It wasn’t juniors rotating out. It was people with five, ten, fifteen years of experience whose skillsets were narrowly optimized for a world that no longer exists. The era of memorizing frameworks and riding version upgrades ended quietly, like deprecated docs nobody reads anymore.
The companies that survived didn’t become more innovative. They became more boring. Fewer layers. Fewer handoffs. Fewer “this team owns the pipeline that owns the service that owns the thing.”
And that’s the uncomfortable truth:
2025 didn’t kill tech jobs. It killed indirection.
The people who stayed weren’t the loudest or the trendiest. They were the ones who understood how things actually worked when the abstraction cracked.
Skill #1: Systems thinking beat tool memorization (and still does)
There was a time when knowing the right tool felt like a superpower.
You learned React early. Or Docker. Or Kubernetes before your team needed it. Suddenly you were the “go-to person.” Promotions happened. Recruiters showed up. Life was good.
Then 2025 hit, and something uncomfortable became obvious:
tools age fast. understanding doesn’t.
The devs who stayed employed weren’t the ones with the longest list of frameworks on their résumé. They were the ones who could explain what happens after a request leaves the browser. Where latency sneaks in. Why retries make things worse sometimes. What breaks first when traffic spikes or a dependency flakes out.
Systems thinking is boring in interviews and priceless in outages.
It’s the ability to zoom out when something breaks instead of panic-refreshing logs. To ask “what changed?” instead of “what library failed?” To recognize that the bug probably isn’t in your code, but in the interaction between three things that were never designed to meet.
I remember the first time I fixed a production issue without Googling anything. Not because I was smarter because I finally understood the system. The data flow. The tradeoffs. The ugly parts everyone ignores when things are working.
That’s the skill hiring managers quietly started filtering for in 2025.
If you can reason about systems, you can pick up new tools in weeks. If all you know is tools, every rewrite resets you to zero.
Frameworks are rentals.
Mental models are ownership.
And in a market that suddenly cares about durability, ownership wins.
Skill #2: Cloud cost literacy became a senior skill overnight
There was a time when cloud bills were someone else’s problem.
You shipped features. Infra scaled. Finance complained quietly. As long as nothing caught fire, nobody asked why a dashboard refresh cost more than a used car.
That era ended in 2025.
The moment budgets tightened, every engineer suddenly inherited a new responsibility: explain the bill. Not optimize it perfectly. Just understand it well enough to not sound confused in a meeting.
And wow… a lot of people couldn’t.
You’d be surprised how many “senior” devs had never opened the pricing page for the services they used daily. EC2 felt infinite. Logs felt cheap. Egress was a footnote nobody read. Kubernetes clusters ran 24/7 because “we might need them.”
Then leadership asked one brutal question:
Why does this feature cost more than it earns?
That’s when cloud cost literacy quietly became a hiring filter.
Not because companies wanted accountants. But because cost is just another form of system behavior. If you understand how your architecture works, you should be able to predict where money leaks when traffic, data, or retries scale.
I still remember the first time I traced a surprise bill spike back to verbose logging and a forgotten debug flag. Nothing was broken. Everything was working exactly as designed. Just… expensively.
That’s the trap.
The devs who survived weren’t the cheapest builders. They were the ones who could say, “Here’s what we’re paying for, here’s why, and here’s what happens if we change it.”
In 2026, that skill reads like maturity.
Performance impresses.
Reliability reassures.
But cost awareness keeps teams alive.
And alive teams keep hiring.
Skill #3: Debugging became more valuable than building
This one hurts to admit, but it’s true.
In 2025, being good at shipping stopped being enough. Everyone could ship. Starters, templates, generators, AI copilots the industry flooded the map with paved roads. You could scaffold an app faster than you could explain why the last one broke.
What companies suddenly needed were people who could fix things when the map was wrong.
Debugging isn’t glamorous. It doesn’t demo well. You can’t tweet it with a rocket emoji. Most of the time, it looks like staring at logs, muttering to yourself, and slowly narrowing the blast radius while everyone else panics.
And that’s exactly why it became leverage.
The engineers who survived weren’t the ones who could add features fastest. They were the ones who knew where to look first when prod started acting haunted. Who could tell the difference between a symptom and a cause. Who didn’t immediately blame “the cloud” or “the framework” when something subtle broke.
I remember a bug that only showed up under load, only after deploys, and only on one region. No stack trace. No errors. Just vibes. The fix wasn’t clever code it was understanding how retries, timeouts, and caching interacted in a way nobody had documented.
That’s the skill gap nobody talks about.
Debugging is systems thinking under pressure. It’s pattern recognition earned the hard way. And in a market that stopped rewarding potential and started rewarding reliability, that mattered more than your ability to spin up something new.
In 2026, builders are everywhere.
Fixers are still rare.
Skill #4: AI orchestration, not prompt magic
By the time 2025 wrapped up, one thing was obvious:
everyone “knew AI.”
At least, everyone knew how to open a chat box, paste code, and hope for the best.
That skill aged fast.
What actually held value wasn’t prompt cleverness. It was knowing where AI fits and where it absolutely doesn’t. The devs who stayed relevant weren’t treating models like oracles they treated them like unreliable interns who work fast and lie confidently.
That mindset shift mattered.
AI worked great for scaffolding, test generation, data cleanup, summarizing logs, drafting boilerplate. It worked terribly when asked to make architectural decisions, reason about edge cases, or own production logic without guardrails.
The engineers who survived knew the difference.
They built workflows, not demos. They wrapped models with retries, validation, fallbacks. They expected hallucinations and designed around them. They didn’t ship AI output blindly and then act surprised when prod disagreed.
I watched teams burn weeks chasing “AI-powered features” that collapsed the moment real users showed up. Meanwhile, quieter teams used the same tools to eliminate boring work and ship faster without advertising it.
That’s orchestration.
Knowing when to call a model.
Knowing how to constrain it.
Knowing when to ignore it entirely.
In 2026, nobody is impressed that you “use AI.” That’s table stakes. What matters is whether your system still behaves predictably when the model is wrong, slow, or unavailable.
AI didn’t replace engineers.
It replaced engineers who thought tools think for them.
The ones who stayed treated AI like infrastructure powerful, dangerous, and never to be trusted without guardrails.
Skill #5: Writing quietly became a power skill again
Nobody puts this on their résumé loud enough.
But in 2025, the engineers who survived weren’t just better coders. They were better explainers.
As teams shrank, async took over. Fewer meetings. Fewer hand-offs. Fewer chances to “just hop on a call and clear it up.” If your thinking only lived in your head or your IDE, it got lost.
Clear writing became a multiplier.
Not flowery blog-post writing. Real, boring, practical writing:
- PR descriptions that explain why, not just what
- Design docs that kill bad ideas early
- Incident reports that don’t read like excuses
- Comments that save someone else an hour of archaeology
I watched mediocre code sail through reviews because the intent was obvious. I watched solid code stall for days because nobody could tell what problem it solved.
That’s when it clicked: writing isn’t communication glue it’s thinking made visible.
When you can explain tradeoffs clearly, people trust your decisions. When you can document failure honestly, people trust you under pressure. When you can teach without ego, you become someone teams don’t want to lose.
And here’s the uncomfortable part:
writing exposes gaps.
You can’t hide behind abstractions when you have to explain them. You either understand the system, or the doc collapses halfway through the paragraph.
In 2026, the strongest engineers won’t just ship features. They’ll leave behind clarity. Fewer meetings. Fewer rewrites. Fewer “wait, why did we do this?” moments.
Code runs once.
Good writing keeps paying rent.
Conclusion the market didn’t get cruel, it got honest
Here’s the uncomfortable takeaway from 2025:
the industry didn’t suddenly hate developers. It just stopped subsidizing confusion.
When 126,000 jobs disappeared, it wasn’t random. It followed a pattern. The roles that vanished were optimized for speed, hype, and surface-level output. The ones that survived were optimized for understanding.
Systems thinkers stayed.
Cost-aware engineers stayed.
People who could debug, explain, and design under pressure stayed.
None of those skills trend on Twitter. None of them feel sexy to learn. And that’s exactly why they’re durable.
The irony is that 2026 is probably a better time to be a developer than the years before the crash. Fewer layers. Fewer fake titles. Less theater. More actual engineering. The bar didn’t get higher it got clearer.
You don’t need to chase every tool. You don’t need to become an AI influencer. You don’t need to predict the next framework cycle.
You need to understand how things work when they break, when they scale, and when they cost real money.
That’s not future-proofing.
That’s just being hard to replace.
And if the last year taught us anything, it’s this:
the safest skill in tech isn’t speed.
It’s depth.
Helpful resources
- AWS Well-Architected Framework: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/wellarchitected/latest/framework/welcome.html
- Real outage postmortems (GitHub curated): https://github.com/danluu/post-mortems
- AWS pricing calculator (open it once, I promise): https://calculator.aws
- FinOps Foundation docs: https://www.finops.org/introduction/what-is-finops/
- “Why is my cloud bill so high?” war stories (HN): https://news.ycombinator.com/
Top comments (0)