Hacker News Reader

Comment by antod | Hacker News Reader

> the structural engineer's trade is no different than any other construction trade, and has a contribution -- framed in financial terms, or in terms of common good -- on the scale of that of a (qualified) tradesman.

Not sure how to read that or how you meant it, but a good or bad engineer can have a big financial effect on a project in a way that a tradesman couldn't.

View on HN

A construction project is overdetermined to a degree that few other enterprises are. In terms of compensation, an hour of a practicing structural engineer (aside from Calatrava & co.) is worth about as much as a carpenter's (who's paid his dues, so at about the same level of investment as engineer's into his profession). In terms of know-how or sweat equity or risk minimization, it's near impossible to say who, if anyone, contributes disproportinately more than others.

Are you talking about the on site engineers supervising the project build (kinda menial work), or the up front design engineers working with the architects?

For the former yeah I can kinda see where your coming from, but for the latter there is huge scope to affect how the project turns out financially in a way that a carpenter or supervising engineer just doesn't have.

A structural engineer in the US, at a minimum, requires a Professional Engineer license. The licensing requirements are similar elsewhere in North America, and in Britain. In some states (such as California), to practice structural engineering requires a Structural Engineer license. So anytime I mentioned structural engineering in this thread, it goes without saying...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com