Completely agree with this. From my completely anecdotal evidence it seems like manufacturing is making a push for productivity and efficiency, which means automating as much as you can if you are in a high volume environment. With minimal interaction there is less risk for tampering, and one less variable to account for (the human operator) when it comes to making process improvements. The less people you have touching the pie, in general, the better. Why hire three people when you hire one? Also a problem. I'm going to use Chemical Engineering as an example. 100,000 technician, maintenance, engineer, and other support and indirect layoffs have occurred in oil/gas in the United States since prices collapsed. This results in a situation where you have very experienced, or at least not fresh out of college, engineers applying for positions that would normally go to entry level (as in, straight of college) employees. The incentive to hire and train somebody fresh is completely gone, and the market becomes more saturated.I think a lot of those jobs would be for higher skilled workers, but less of them.
Just because there are more skilled workers out there, that doesn't necessarily mean there will be jobs for them.
I could see that as something that would drive down wages and benefits as well. If you're desperate for a job, you're probably willing to make $15/hr work for you when under normal circumstances, you wouldn't sign up for less than $20.The incentive to hire and train somebody fresh is completely gone, and the market becomes more saturated.