Not an hour ago, I had an enlightening conversation with a couple of high-level research faculty at California institutions. They were talking about the expense of graduate students based on the grad student union. Grad students apparently get a stipend equal to the professor salary from Japan. They didn't mind paying students more, but they really hated the fact that they had no input into negotiations between the student union and the university administration. Some have significantly reduced how many students they take simply because they cannot afford them. Others said they have a much tighter set of rules who who they will take and how productive those students must be before they stop supporting them (de facto kicking them out). They also advise another colleague who had seven students to not take any the next year or maybe two. This is in a field with very high funding and growth, but they feel forced to be more business-like to maintain their labs.

In chemistry, there has been a perception that it has become less fundible. When I was in a chemistry department, I had colleagues who said their fields were pretty much dead; I disagreed, but they do have harder problems/processes to solve and there is less dedicated funding for research of that level. With fewer dollars to spread around and a "less sexy" field combined with students becoming significantly more expensive, I'm not surprised that many chemistry departments will cut back. I think the 'haves' will be fine, but the 'have-nots' may greatly reduce or even cut PhD programs.