Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#291

Post by ubernostrum » Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

arjie wrote: post #290

ubernostrum wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so let's really do this, even though the other commenter got downvoted into oblivion just for daring to check the math. The claim is they make 75.91/hr when in the crane, 73.91 when not. Let's say they spend 6 hours a day in the crane, 2 hours not in the crane; that's 603.28/day. Five days a week is 3,016.40. 52 weeks a year would be 156,852.80. So we're at $156,852.80/year from 8-hour days of work. We need to so…

Why you'd go to the effort of doing all these estimates and just make up nonsensical multipliers is beyond me. Off-shift work is a little over 1.5x (this is non-overtime work that's not between 8 and 5), overtime is 2x. Weekend is 2x. Every overtime hour gets you a D stamp that is not insignificant in value. All that information is public. I'm a little suspicious of a $500k crane engineer myself, but you managed to g…

OK, so let's run the numbers for overtime as double time.

An 8-hour weekday shift with 2 hours not behind the crane is:

(75.91 * 6) + (73.91 * 2) = 603.28

A five-day week at that rate is 3,016.40.

52 weeks of that is $156,852.80. Add $60k insurance (and it's questionable to bundle that as "pay", but whatever), and we're at $218,652.80. Add $18k for max 401(k) contribution and it's $234,852.80.

From there we need to find $265,147.20 in overtime to get to $500k. If the overtime rate is double time, and if literally every overtime hour worked is behind the crane, our engineer needs 1,747 hours of overtime in a year in order to hit $500,000.

Working at 8-hour shift every weekend day can eat up 832 hours of that, leaving 915 hours we still need to find somewhere else. That's 17.6 hours of overtime per week. If they're only worked on weekdays, the crane operator needs to work an 11.5 hour shift every weekday and an 8 hour shift every Saturday and Sunday, year-round, to hit $500,000.

I'm more than "a little suspicious" of that.

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#292

Post by arjie » Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 7:22 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #291

arjie wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why you'd go to the effort of doing all these estimates and just make up nonsensical multipliers is beyond me. Off-shift work is a little over 1.5x (this is non-overtime work that's not between 8 and 5), overtime is 2x. Weekend is 2x. Every overtime hour gets you a D stamp that is not insignificant in value. All that information is public. I'm a little suspicious of a $500k crane engineer myself, but you managed to g…

OK, so let's run the numbers for overtime as double time. An 8-hour weekday shift with 2 hours not behind the crane is: (75.91 * 6) + (73.91 * 2) = 603.28 A five-day week at that rate is 3,016.40. 52 weeks of that is $156,852.80. Add $60k insurance (and it's questionable to bundle that as "pay", but whatever), and we're at $218,652.80. Add $18k for max 401(k) contribution and it's $234,852.80. From there we need to f…

I don't think you're measuring this accurately. You keep leaving out too much. Fortunately, since $235k is far above the threshold to make my point, I'm not going to press it.

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#293

Post by sangnoir » Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 8:09 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #276

CPLX wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cost of the extension was prohibitively expensive because of unions. Europe is able to build subways with much less cost per mile than NYC You mean the same Europe that has incredibly powerful public sector unions? Maybe a thing they don't have is a political system run by a group of mindless plutocratic politicians that shout "free markets" as the solution to social problems while practicing crony capitalism.…

Yes, the same Europe. I don't know about the French, but the unions in Germany and Scandinavia are quite a bit more pro-business than their American counterparts. Hong Kong and Singapore build infrastructure for quite cheap. And there they don't need to shout about `free markets': the government mostly allows them already. I'm totally with you on the crony-capitalism bashing.

> Yes, the same Europe. I don't know about the French, but the unions in Germany and Scandinavia are quite a bit more pro-business than their American counterparts.

Why wouldn't German unions be pro-business when labor is represented at board level with full voting rights? German corporations do not consider themselves "job creators" or see workers as resources to be exploited, unlike their American counterparts.

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#294

Post by ubernostrum » Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 8:28 PM UTC

arjie wrote: post #292

ubernostrum wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so let's run the numbers for overtime as double time. An 8-hour weekday shift with 2 hours not behind the crane is: (75.91 * 6) + (73.91 * 2) = 603.28 A five-day week at that rate is 3,016.40. 52 weeks of that is $156,852.80. Add $60k insurance (and it's questionable to bundle that as "pay", but whatever), and we're at $218,652.80. Add $18k for max 401(k) contribution and it's $234,852.80. From there we need to f…

I don't think you're measuring this accurately. You keep leaving out too much. Fortunately, since $235k is far above the threshold to make my point, I'm not going to press it.

It's only $235k if you estimate health insurance at $60k + a maxed-out 401(k) contribution and add both of them to the dollar amount of what the engineer makes in wages.

Without, if they work 52 40-hour weeks, it's $156k. Which is good money, but a far, far cry from the "many make half a million" claim.

And since a little bit of "let's actually run the numbers you just presented" reduced the initially claimed amount by nearly 70%, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say the initial claim was not rooted in reality, and probably the real amount is lower yet.

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#295

Post by kafkaesq » Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 8:33 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #235

kafkaesq wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing about "motives", that you can't never prove or disprove one unless confessed by the "motivator" right? So... ya might as well just believe whichever side of the coin you like better, right? Works for some people, I guess.

(Not sure that's the case here, but) when it all boils down to a he-said, she-said argument, the only thing you have at your disposal in decision-making is your perception of the character of the two parties. So yes, whichever side you like better.

Not sure that's the case here, but) when it all boils down to a he-said, she-said argument,

You might want to question the validity of that assumption. Most likely the truth (was) basically knowable in this case, with a modicum of effort.

Just that Crain's apparently didn't want to take even baby steps in the direction of that effort -- i.e. the standard proactive, iterative follow-up that, you know, real journalists do: like contacting the entrepreneurial crane operator before publication to get their response to the DOB's claims about the composition of their rigs; and asking the DOB for their response to his response, etc. Or like, you know, talking to an independent expert or two. That kind of thing.

Instead they just did the usual throw-it-at-the-wall, see-if-it-sticks thing -- and presented it as a "he said, she said" story. Which may not have been all that illuminating or informative -- but at least got people to click on it, and (judging by the response here in this forum), to allow their buttons to be pushed.

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#296

Post by cyphunk » Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 9:02 PM UTC

Unions are great. It's also great the whole world isn't run by unions. Meaning, I don't understand why a less union friendly city in the US, china, UAE, anywhere, doesn't pick up his equipment and run with it. After years of drug testing perhaps other cities like NYC will be ready for human trials.

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#297

Post by kafkaesq » Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #236

kafkaesq wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely there are already processes in place to get down to the truth on matters like these. Slow-moving processes - but processes, nonetheless. You know - formal appeals, FOIA requests, lawsuits, expert testimony - that sort of thing. But this all makes for poor ad copy, of course. "Bold, Crafty Innovator Thwarted, 'Cause Unions!" -- that's what gets people to click on your article. And share it in venues such a…

The problem is that all those things cost money, and the "bold, crafty innovator", after putting $1M of his own money into it, can't afford to pay for all that. The city, and the union, have very deep pockets, and have no incentive to do the right thing and pay for it. Sometimes Goliath stomps David, and we all lose.

I'm not saying he has no reason to find fault in either the DOB's initial decision about his new crane, or in Crain's coverage of the issue.

Just that it's kind of weird (in my view) that so many people seem to be happy to conclude that we somehow "know" that it was union arm-twisting which (at least temporarily) sealed his fate. Despite the complete lack of primary (or even secondary) evidence for such a connection.

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#298

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

memmcgee wrote: post #101

gipp wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is far from 10-20x difference. And many or most of those nations have stronger worker protections than the US, calling into question the idea that labor law is really the main driving force there. It's probably more like propertyholder protectionism (i.e. NIMBYism) dominating local politics. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-i... http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/03/31/high_costs_ma…

Those nations also have stronger social safety nets, including health and retirement benefits provided nationally rather than by the employer. Your first article mentions that operating costs per ride in the NYC metro are $4.11, compared to $2.61 in London. It also estimates though that $1 of that is health and retirement benefits.

The strong welfare state in these countries essentially subsidises employers in this way. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind you.

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#299

Post by Nrsolis » Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 10:10 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #289

Nrsolis wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in America. I work in NYC. The unions here are a significant problem. Unions in NYC are a protection racket. They don't do crap for worker safety or fair workplace rules. They are a front for legal extortion and add complexity and cost to nearly everything they touch. Story time: Going in and out of telecommunications buildings there were scales by the doors to the rooms with equipment. If a bag, device, or pi…

> Remember when Twinkies disappeared from the markets? Unions. That is total unmitigated bullshit. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/business/dealbook/how-the...

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Let me tell you something you might be unfamiliar with: companies that cannot manage their affairs properly will end up in bankruptcy. They will owe more to those who provide it with goods and services than they can collect. This happens when companies cannot (or will not) adjust their operations to accommodate changes in market conditions or regulatory environments.

The cost structure of Hostess made them uncompetitive. And unions are a big part of the reason why they could no longer compete effectively.

You're free to disagree with my analysis but you're not entitled to your own facts. A company that goes bankrupt several times is prima facie evidence of poor management. And by poor management, I mean management that could not or would not deal with a major cost of their operations: labor.

If Hostess hadn't gone into bankruptcy, we wouldn't be having the argument at all. Private equity would have never swooped in to buy up the distressed assets, free itself of the onerous union contracts and poorly negotiated supplier agreements to rise from the ashes.

I can still buy Twinkies and I have private equity firms to thank for it. Not unions.

QED.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/whos-to...

http://fortune.com/2012/07/26/hostess-is-bankrupt-again/

Re: Why is this little construction crane illegal in New York City? (2016)

#300

Post by CPLX » Tue, Mar 28, 2017, 10:49 PM UTC

Nrsolis wrote: post #299

CPLX wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Remember when Twinkies disappeared from the markets? Unions. That is total unmitigated bullshit. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/business/dealbook/how-the...

I wholeheartedly disagree. Let me tell you something you might be unfamiliar with: companies that cannot manage their affairs properly will end up in bankruptcy. They will owe more to those who provide it with goods and services than they can collect. This happens when companies cannot (or will not) adjust their operations to accommodate changes in market conditions or regulatory environments. The cost structure of H…

So when it's labor's fault it's labor's fault. Also when it's bad management then it's labor's fault. And when it goes bankrupt it's because labor is greedy and wants too much money. And later when management siphons hundreds of millions of dollars out of the company that's not because they are greedy and want too much money.

Makes sense to me.