5 ms·

Even assuming that there were no other federal, state or local YoY differences [1] that could explain this change (and that the numbers are right as presented i

by timr 1y ago

Even assuming that there were no other federal, state or local YoY differences [1] that could explain this change (and that the numbers are right as presented in the first place), New York City private sector employment is nothing like most other parts of the US: it's the largest city in the US by a large margin, it has a concentration of employment in a few major industries (finance, fashion, publishing, software) that aren't represented elsewhere, and...it hasn't been a manufacturing center since the victorian era. You can't wave this away with "NYC is a leading indicator for the US economy". To the extent that it's true at all, you could say it about any large city in the US. [1] Like, say: interest rates, the business cycle, AI, the slowdown in software hiring, or the minimum wage increase that NYC implemented on January 1, 2025.

fn-mote 1y ago
This dismissal of a massive drop in hiring (literally 1.5% of the previous half year’s reported hiring) is wishful thinking. “Ignore this data point, NYC is special.” Color me skeptical.
- timr 1y ago
  I'm not ignoring it, but I’m not falling into a post hoc fallacy, either. I'll put it this way: if I were ignoring it, I'd be ignoring one more data point than you are in cherry-picking a single example.
  - lovemenot 1y ago
    I'd be ignoring one more data point
    - timr 1y ago
      whoops. fixed.
apical_dendrite 1y ago
It's true that NYC private sector employment is different from the US labor market as a whole, but NYC private sector employment is better representative of what readers of this site care about than overall US employment. Readers are much more likely to be affected by changes in the professional services and information sectors than, say, agriculture.
- timr 1y ago
  And again, even if you assume that all of that is true, you're still making a leap of logic that these changes are because of the tariffs.
  - immibis 1y ago
    What else changed?
    - timr 1y ago
      I named several in my original comment. The big, blinking, obvious YoY change for anyone here is tech employment.
      - immibis 1y ago
        As a result of tariffs
        mensetmanusman 1y ago
        No, that was R&D deduction changes.
- epistasis 1y ago
  The agricultural section indicators are that there's about to be a big, expensive bailout for ag: > “Right now, we have zero bushels of soybeans on the books with China for this fall harvest that has begun in the Deep South,” Ragland said. “Normally by this time, close to 40% of our sales for the marketing year are on the books. And with zero on the books right now, it is alarming for American soybean farmers.” https://www.farmprogress.com/soybean/us-soybean-exports-to-china-plummet-alarming-farmers-as-harvest-begins https://www.farmprogress.com/soybean/us-soybean-exports-to-c... The first time that Trump screwed over with tariffs, they got tons of bailout money that we all paid for. Not all sectors of the economy are so lucky. The big man at the top must be paid with either bribes or allegiance or both.
atoav 1y ago
Yes, a tariff can be a good measure. But for that the tariffed goods need to be selected carefully and rationally und not whatever the heck the Trump administration is doing. For example you can tariff bananas all you like, that won't spark widespread banana production in a climate that can't grow them.
- californical 1y ago
  No but it could shift consumer demand a bit to favor apples, for example, which largely come from domestic sources. Not arguing one way or another, but your reduction isn’t quite accurate with the affects tariffs can have
- m348e912 1y ago
  Hawaii produces 6.3 million lbs per year of bananas which is a tiny fraction of the 8 million metric tons per year Ecuador produces. Labor and land cost is the primary reason Hawaii can't compete with Latin America, but long-standing tariffs could change that.
  - simonh 1y ago
    About 2m people are employed directly or indirectly in the Ecuadorean banana industry. The total population of Hawaii is only 1.5m. Also you could fit Hawaii in a corner of Ecuador. Unless you turned over all the islands exclusively to bananas, and forget about tourism, pineapples or anything else, you’re not even going to get close.
  - toast0 1y ago
    Hawaii is already heavily agricultural. Most of the non-agricultural land is reserved for conservation. Banana production would likely replace other production, and then we've got less of that stuff. Also, shipping to continental US is limited by the Jones Act and the lack of capacity in US built, owned, and crewed shipping lines. Assuming a desire to produce things in the US, I don't think it's sensible to tarrif bananas to grow them in Hawaii, and then relax the Jones act so they can be shipped to the continental US on foreign carriers.
- 1y ago

by timr 1y ago

fn-mote 1y ago

This dismissal of a massive drop in hiring (literally 1.5% of the previous half year’s reported hiring) is wishful thinking. “Ignore this data point, NYC is special.” Color me skeptical.

timr 1y ago
I'm not ignoring it, but I’m not falling into a post hoc fallacy, either. I'll put it this way: if I were ignoring it, I'd be ignoring one more data point than you are in cherry-picking a single example.
- lovemenot 1y ago
  I'd be ignoring one more data point
  - timr 1y ago
    whoops. fixed.

apical_dendrite 1y ago

It's true that NYC private sector employment is different from the US labor market as a whole, but NYC private sector employment is better representative of what readers of this site care about than overall US employment. Readers are much more likely to be affected by changes in the professional services and information sectors than, say, agriculture.

timr 1y ago
And again, even if you assume that all of that is true, you're still making a leap of logic that these changes are because of the tariffs.
- immibis 1y ago
  What else changed?
  - timr 1y ago
    I named several in my original comment. The big, blinking, obvious YoY change for anyone here is tech employment.
    - immibis 1y ago
      As a result of tariffs
      - mensetmanusman 1y ago
        No, that was R&D deduction changes.
epistasis 1y ago
The agricultural section indicators are that there's about to be a big, expensive bailout for ag: > “Right now, we have zero bushels of soybeans on the books with China for this fall harvest that has begun in the Deep South,” Ragland said. “Normally by this time, close to 40% of our sales for the marketing year are on the books. And with zero on the books right now, it is alarming for American soybean farmers.” https://www.farmprogress.com/soybean/us-soybean-exports-to-china-plummet-alarming-farmers-as-harvest-begins https://www.farmprogress.com/soybean/us-soybean-exports-to-c... The first time that Trump screwed over with tariffs, they got tons of bailout money that we all paid for. Not all sectors of the economy are so lucky. The big man at the top must be paid with either bribes or allegiance or both.

atoav 1y ago

Yes, a tariff can be a good measure. But for that the tariffed goods need to be selected carefully and rationally und not whatever the heck the Trump administration is doing. For example you can tariff bananas all you like, that won't spark widespread banana production in a climate that can't grow them.

californical 1y ago
No but it could shift consumer demand a bit to favor apples, for example, which largely come from domestic sources. Not arguing one way or another, but your reduction isn’t quite accurate with the affects tariffs can have
m348e912 1y ago
Hawaii produces 6.3 million lbs per year of bananas which is a tiny fraction of the 8 million metric tons per year Ecuador produces. Labor and land cost is the primary reason Hawaii can't compete with Latin America, but long-standing tariffs could change that.
- simonh 1y ago
  About 2m people are employed directly or indirectly in the Ecuadorean banana industry. The total population of Hawaii is only 1.5m. Also you could fit Hawaii in a corner of Ecuador. Unless you turned over all the islands exclusively to bananas, and forget about tourism, pineapples or anything else, you’re not even going to get close.
- toast0 1y ago
  Hawaii is already heavily agricultural. Most of the non-agricultural land is reserved for conservation. Banana production would likely replace other production, and then we've got less of that stuff. Also, shipping to continental US is limited by the Jones Act and the lack of capacity in US built, owned, and crewed shipping lines. Assuming a desire to produce things in the US, I don't think it's sensible to tarrif bananas to grow them in Hawaii, and then relax the Jones act so they can be shipped to the continental US on foreign carriers.
1y ago