← Risk register SOC 51-2028 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical Assemblers, Except Coil Winders, Tapers, and Finishers

246,970 US workers · median $45,850/yr · Production

COOKED

The work — populating boards, crimping and routing harnesses, torquing fasteners, running functional test fixtures, logging results on work orders — is manual rather than text-based, so language AI barely touches it directly. The real pressure is industrial: pick-and-place, automated wire-cutting and crimping cells, AI vision inspection, and offshoring already absorb the high-volume tiers, and BLS has this occupation shrinking for years. What persists is low-volume, high-mix, prototype, and rework assembly where fixturing a robot costs more than a technician's hands, but that tier is smaller than the current headcount and carries no license, no signature, and no client relationship.

10-year outlook: Headcount keeps eroding through automation and offshoring; the jobs that remain are prototype, rework, and machine-tending roles held by people with IPC credentials and troubleshooting skill.

US employment, 2019–2025-13.4%
285,190246,970 workers

Most of this decline happened after 2021 — it is not the pandemic dip.

Median pay $34,810 → $45,850 +5.4% in real terms (nominal +31.7%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+4.6% 261,400 → 273,300 on the projections basis

Exposed, but growing

AI can already do a lot of these tasks, and the BLS still expects +4.6% more of these jobs by 2034. Demand for the output is growing faster than the work is being automated away — the mechanism BLS gives for software developers, and the combination people most often misread as an error.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~29,600 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

MechanicAssemblerConnectorPlug WirerCable WirerWire BenderWire WorkerEncapsulatorHand MounterSkein WinderStem MounterSubassemblerAnode BuilderGrid OperatorPanel BuilderSpeaker WirerElectric WirerLamp AssemblerRelay AdjusterTube RebuilderAssembly WorkerBattery BuilderFinal AssemblerHand Cell Tuber

Score — 28/100 resistance

Holding it up: task resistance (12/20). Weakest point: liability shield (1/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 12 + 10 + 1 + 2 + 3 = 28. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 12/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier Populating through-hole boards and dressing a harness by hand still defeats a pick-and-place line at lot sizes of 20, but SMT reflow, automated crimp presses, and AOI already own the volume work you used to do, which puts this at 12 rather than 16 — the manual dexterity holds, the demand for it doesn't.

Embodiment 10/20

Some physical or field component You are standing at an ESD bench under a magnifier with hand tools, torque drivers, and test fixtures — physical, but in a climate-controlled, lit, fixtured cell where parts arrive in kitted trays, which is why this sits at 10 and not with the field technician crawling through a machine room at 16.

Liability shield 1/20

No licence, no signature requirement No state licence gates this bench; IPC-A-610 or J-STD-001 certification may be required by your employer's customer, but the QA engineer or DER signs the acceptance and the company's AS9100/ISO cert carries the exposure, not your initials on the traveler.

Trust premium 2/20

Anonymous artifact production The assembly ships in a box with a serial number and a test report; the customer never learns which operator built it, and swapping you for the operator on second shift changes nothing they can detect — the 2 reflects that your lead knows your yield rate, and no one else does.

Judgment & accountability 3/20

Executes defined procedures on defined inputs You work to a build print, a bill of materials, and a written work instruction with rev control, and when a part doesn't fit or a board fails test the call goes to the engineer via a nonconformance tag — the 3 covers the real discretion you do have in solder rework and troubleshooting a bad joint before escalating.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment

How to future-proof this job

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

Where this experience transfers — nothing clears the bar

No occupation passed every test: close enough to electrical, electronic, and electromechanical assemblers, except coil winders, tapers, and finishers on skills and subject matter, at least 10 points more resistant, no big jump in training, no new licence, no pay cut, and not shrinking on its own. That happens for 223 of the 654 occupations here that aren't SAFE, and it is worth stating plainly rather than leaving the section off.

The usual reason is that exposure travels with the skill profile. The jobs most similar to yours tend to be exposed for the same reasons yours is, so the near neighbours don't clear the gap — and the ones that do are a different kind of work, not a transfer of what you already know. Read that as a limit of this method, not a verdict that you're stuck: it only compares whole occupations, and it cannot see specialisation, industry, or anything you'd bring that isn't in a federal skill survey.

What would move this occupation up is the other direction, and on this page it's the more useful one.

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 45/100 — EXPOSED.

5 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening embodiment +4

    Task-mix shift toward low-volume, high-mix, prototype, and field-rework assembly: hand-soldering fine-pitch or through-hole rework on mixed-technology boards, one-off harness building in aerospace/defense NPI shops, and repair of legacy units where no fixture or CAD exists. Fixturing cost per unit keeps these off automated lines regardless of model capability.

  • already happening trust premium +2

    Narrow but real: hand-built premium electronics — boutique audio amplifiers, guitar pedals, analog synths, restoration of vintage gear — where point-to-point hand wiring is advertised as the product. This is a few thousand jobs at most and is not a route for the 247k headcount.

  • plausible task resistance +4

    Genuine two-tier split: if the high-volume populate-and-test tier is fully absorbed by pick-and-place plus AI optical inspection, the residual job becomes diagnostic rework, first-article build from ambiguous drawings, and debugging why a prototype fails test — work that requires inferring intent from an incomplete BOM. Watch IPC-A-610 Class 3 rework and NPI-only job postings displacing 'assembler I' postings.

  • plausible liability shield +4

    Certification-gated build authority: if defense and space primes tighten flowdown so that NASA-STD-8739.4 / J-STD-001ES space-addendum operator certification (and named operator traceability in the build record) becomes a hard contract condition rather than a preference, plus ITAR-driven onshore-only build, a specific certified human's stamp attaches to the joint. Similar route via FAA repair-station certificated personnel for avionics harness work, or IPC-7711/7721 rework certification required by medical-device DHR under FDA QSR.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    Escalation authority in an automated line: if the surviving role becomes the human who dispositions vision-system rejects, signs the material review board nonconformance, and decides scrap-versus-rework on a high-value assembly, the call is consequential and traceable to a person. Watch for 'assembler' postings that carry MRB or line-stop authority.

The limit. The binding constraint is industrial automation and offshoring, not model capability, so most levers only protect a tier smaller than current headcount. Certification and MRB routes raise the score of the surviving job without saving the jobs already gone; a higher register score here would describe a much smaller occupation.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 230 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 13,740 $45,670 +0%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 9,750 $41,160 -10%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 9,530 $48,060 +5%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 8,760 $46,620 +2%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 7,320 $55,230 +20%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 5,420 $45,930 +0%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 4,720 $47,750 +4%
San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA 4,650 $47,850 +4%

Best paid

Idaho Falls, ID 170 $86,330 +88%
Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA 500 $62,200 +36%
Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA 40 $60,130 +31%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $45,850. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 28. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.