[antod]

> 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.

[myegorov]

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.

[antod]

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.

[myegorov]

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...