←back to thread

462 points JumpCrisscross | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lazarus01 ◴[] No.45078568[source]
In NYC, for the first 6 months of 2025, 994 new private sector jobs were created [1]. During the same period last year, there were 66,000 new jobs created.

Higher cost of doing business from tariffs has frozen hiring. With a frozen job market, there’s less revenue coming in.

NYC is a leading indicator for the rest of the country.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/13/nyregion/nyc-jobs.html

replies(13): >>45078595 #>>45078679 #>>45078740 #>>45078958 #>>45079382 #>>45080115 #>>45080271 #>>45080965 #>>45081316 #>>45082066 #>>45083020 #>>45083528 #>>45083540 #
timr ◴[] No.45078679[source]
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.

replies(3): >>45078736 #>>45078886 #>>45079076 #
apical_dendrite ◴[] No.45078886[source]
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.
replies(3): >>45079313 #>>45079534 #>>45081432 #
timr ◴[] No.45079313[source]
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.
replies(1): >>45079691 #
1. immibis ◴[] No.45079691[source]
What else changed?
replies(1): >>45080567 #
2. timr ◴[] No.45080567[source]
I named several in my original comment.

The big, blinking, obvious YoY change for anyone here is tech employment.

replies(1): >>45083841 #
3. immibis ◴[] No.45083841[source]
As a result of tariffs
replies(1): >>45087225 #
4. mensetmanusman ◴[] No.45087225{3}[source]
No, that was R&D deduction changes.