undefined

points

[-]

Sorry for being salty, a bit hyperbole perhaps in the 2:1 numbers.

I draft and write some code for construction companies and personally saw layoffs and not taking work due to increased material costs. The structural companies we worked with similarly did a few layoffs. The average pay of these jobs was 60k+.

Manufacturing of steel is very competitive and I haven't seen the American steel drop in price. I can't personally imagine it adding more than a few thousand jobs since it's so competitive (thin margins) and you would have to add a ton of production to add one job.

Meanwhile, the profitability of building a building is a direct feed into whether buildings get built. A building not being built directly led to laying off about 100 field guys for us.

by britzkopf3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

What is the alternative to buildings? Outdoor schools, factories and dental offices?

by knollimar3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That sounds like some reductionist hackernews question that tries to hint at some clever insight but I'll assume no snark and answer with as much insight as I can.

You just make less of them. Some buildings are discretionary, like your big apartment buildings you probably want (these were the two that got cancelled).

Person funding can make x profit over building per year. Person loaning loans x for y sum. Building costing more than interest amortized profit means it doesn't get built.

And I just had a doctor's office fitout cancelled mid project (drafted it personally :) ). so apparently those are, too.

Public projects like schools rarely get cancelled. Factories I personally don't draft so I really can't tell you.

Healthcare absolutely has a ton of discretion for their buildouts.

What's the alternative to steel? You just make less if it's not profitable to make.

by britzkopf2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Funny that you're accusation of snark was not without snark itself. I'll take your word on it for the level of discretion on some public building, though I would have thought/hoped that whimsy would play no more role than a rinsing error. Especially in the current economy. Maybe it's good there is less superfluous building going on?

by knollimar2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Sorry, the question seemed like one of those low effort "have you thought about just not building buildings, hmmmmm?" that requires more effort to address than it took to ask. That "combatative-without-seeming-combatitive-for-the-purpose-of-seeming-like-the-good-faith-one" hackernews pretend good faith socratic argument is what it read to me. Apologize if it wasn't the angle you were going for.

If the stated goal is jobs, the tariffs aren't doing it from what I can tell.

It seems to be hands have been put on the scales, and to call cancelling the building that would have otherwise been built due to market forces good needs some testing. If it were doctors offices in already served areas, sure, but these were not subsidized but lower end apartment buildings in NYC. I'm hoping the guys who were laid off moved to some other company rather than exiting the trade.

by jubilanti2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Both of you are being insufferable.

by xp843 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Not GP, but what all economists have been saying is that tariffing industrial raw materials - industrial inputs like steel, aluminum, lumber, is idiotic because the companies that make machines, cars, houses, makes a lot more money per ton of metal that is made than the mining, steel, lumber companies (etc) made making the raw materials. So, that tariff makes a winner of a very few small employers, while massively screwing way more and larger companies who employ orders of magnitude more people here (and those jobs are better jobs too).

And we are very competitive in machines, already set up to win.

It’s also fantasy that even 4 years of tariffs will convince anyone to build brand-new smelting operations, as they’re very large, capital intensive, take a while to build. And again, mostly worse jobs.