# Handyman Service



## oldfrt (Oct 10, 2007)

I was thinking more along the lines of a State employee,within the licensing bureau,that could be assigned to districts or counties.
His whole purpose would be compliance with licensing.
The State licensing board could use the funds collected to pay this enforcer and run the 
program.
They collect our money so they should protect our rights for being legit.


----------



## mudpad (Dec 26, 2008)

mattsk8 said:


> If you want more government regulations, I suggest moving to Iran or somewhere like that. :thumbsup:.


The flip side of that is if you want no regulations move to Somalia or somewhere like that. There has to be a balance of freedom and regulation.


----------



## mattsk8 (Dec 6, 2009)

JumboJack said:


> The big,BIG difference between licensed and unlicensed is _accountability_.An unlicensed hack does a job wrong,unsafely or rips someone off and they could be next to impossible to find to get restitution for the HO.
> 
> A licensed hack on the other hand it would only take a call to the CSLB to report a problem.If they are truly hacks they will loose their license.
> Also a licensed contractor is,in mot cases required to carry insurance,both GL and WC.


When I took the license class the one thing that scared the crap out of me was finding out that if I did a job for a HO that exceeded $600.00, the HO didn't have to pay regardless of reasoning. I did ALOT of work prior to that exceeding $600.00. As far as the legalities that go along w/ a situation like an unlicensed hack installing a handycap bar in a shower and having it break, I don't know what recourse the HO would have but I'm pretty sure in court the HO would win hands down.

I have a friend that tried to start a "handyman" business because he got laid off from his tool and die shop. I wouldn't trust him to change a light bulb in my house. On the same note, I did a bunch of cabinet and trim work in a house for a customer that wanted me to do the trim but was having another builder do the house. The builder was licensed. He tried to screw me on the cabinets but I threatened the HO w/ a lein on the house. The HO paid me so I wouldn't do it because he wanted to move in and the house had already taken about 8 months and still not close to move in time . The builder didn't pay his subs (most of whom were not licensed so they had no recourse) but did quality work. The builder was and is STILL licensed.
This situation was partialy the HO's fault as well. I bid on the whole house (probably had about 50 hours into bidding it) and the HO used my already rock bottom bid just to get one for about 10k$ less. How'd that work out for him :thumbup:?! The house still isn't right and the HO paid me more than the 10k he saved by going w/ another bid just to finish SOME of the stuff that wasn't done.
My point to all that is that the unlicensed guy is a boob and so is the licensed guy. In the same way I know amazing licensed guys and unlicensed guys.

I have used subs that weren't licensed. Experience and quality means waaaaaaaaaay more than "do you have a license".

All more regulations will do is make it HARDER for us to survive. I'm not offering a solution to "hacks" doing work and honestly I don't think there will ever be one. If you want to compete w/ morons do an incredible job at a fair price and word will travel about you, the same applies if you're a butcher. I've never advertised, I live in MI and I'm swamped right now. Who knows what tomorrow will bring but for now I must be doing something right and for that I thank God, not our government.

Lastly, I'm sure none of the guys here who are whining about people w/ no license EVER did a job prior to having it right?


----------



## mattsk8 (Dec 6, 2009)

mudpad said:


> The flip side of that is if you want no regulations move to Somalia or somewhere like that. There has to be a balance of freedom and regulation.


I agree; if not you would have anarchy and that's survival of the fittest. I just think they go too far. Bigger government is not the answere to all our problems and definitely not in these situations. HO's and hacks are equaly responsible. As an HO you tried to save $$ and got burned so you got what you deserved and the government is supposed to try to protect people like this?? Protect them from what, themselves? Kind of like making it illegal to commit suicide- doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.


----------



## Darwin (Apr 7, 2009)

There-in lies the case of out-of-work-folk picking up a toolbelt and calling themselves, "handyman" or "skilled tradesman". They think just because they can put a nail in wood and connect to another piece, they've "built sumthing".

Or, putting in a handicap tub grab bar, and can't find the stud. So, when the handicapped H/O "grabs" the bar thinking it is safe they create a wake in the tub; a friggin suu-na-mi!

Then It Gets Serious, Folks! Good Post, Mattsk8. :thumbsup:


----------



## CharlesD (Feb 12, 2007)

My business was in Arkansas which at the time didn't require licenses unless you did government jobs. My home county didn't have any zoning laws or codes to follow unless you were building a VA or FHA home.
I avoided those places where licenses were required like Pine Bluff and Little Rock. I did work in towns that made me buy permits to work.
As a general rule, every contractor in our area did good work and were honest. Even though we weren't being inspected or had to have permits we did good work that would meet any code. 
Everytime I visit there, I do a small drive by of some of the houses I worked on and if I can I talk to the homeowners. Everyone is happy and always appreciates the services I provided them.
But, every year, I would have to finish or straighten out jobs (usually siding jobs) done by licensed contractors from LR or BP who would come down to our county where there wasn't codes and throw up a job and run with the money.
Basically a license just give the cheat a way to cheat within the bounds of the law. An honest man will do right regardless of who's watching or not watching.
If a contractor does people right, what others do won't affect them at all. In fact, keep doing right and in the end you will be straightening up the messes left by the fly by night.


----------



## mics_54 (Oct 28, 2008)

yeah licensing insures compliance and qualification...that's why driving a car is so safe.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

Sadly, though, Charles, there just aren't that many men left who understand what you just wrote.


----------



## mudpad (Dec 26, 2008)

mics_54 said:


> yeah licensing insures compliance and qualification...that's why driving a car is so safe.


And you think it would be safer if 10 year olds, blind people, and repeat DUI offenders were allowed unrestricted use of motor vehicles? :w00t:


----------



## mics_54 (Oct 28, 2008)

> And you think it would be safer if 10 year olds, blind people, and repeat DUI offenders were allowed unrestricted use of motor vehicles?


Will Licensing?

I mean nobody drive without one right?


----------



## mudpad (Dec 26, 2008)

mics_54 said:


> Will Licensing?
> 
> I mean nobody drive without one right?


Yes. If nobody drove without a license, the roads would absolutely be a safer place to drive. Obviously some people will drive with or without a license, but most won't, so the roads are a safer place to drive because of licensing.


----------



## mics_54 (Oct 28, 2008)

Right that's why driving is so safe...licensing.
I have never had an auto accident in 40 years...it isn't because I have a license.


----------



## mics_54 (Oct 28, 2008)

Friend of mine and his wife were killed a few years ago in a head on collision with tractor trailor rig. Both drivers had licenses. Truck crossed the line on a bridge. License didn't save them. Both drivers had drivers training, license, insurance, experience. Auto accidents kill and injure more people than any other activity. I suppose you think all the accidents are caused by non-licensed drivers. If a man drives 40 years with out a license and never has an accident....were the roads worse?

Licensing is about money.


----------



## custrel (Jun 30, 2009)

oldfrt said:


> I would think that the fines collected for unlicensed work could support an "Enforcement Officer" with bonuses added over a certain quota to give him incentive to actually do his job.


You think cities and counties could make quite a bit of money if they had 'construction enforcement officers' that just drove around certain areas looking for job sites and writing tickets for every infraction they see - just like meter maids -er- 'parking enforcement officers' do.

Everyone would probably get ticketed for something, but unlicensed contractors would be driven out of business quickly.


----------



## mics_54 (Oct 28, 2008)

They don't want unlicensed contractors out of business.


----------



## CharlesD (Feb 12, 2007)

mics_54 said:


> yeah licensing insures compliance and qualification...that's why driving a car is so safe.


My idea is just do away with drivers licenses and let everyone mount a machine gun on the hood of their car or truck. Then when someone does something stupid that could have caused a wreck, just fire off a few rounds into their trunk or hood. then if that doesn't work, aim for between their eyes. I have a strong hunch everyone would begin to be kind and courtious on the highways if we did that and we wouldn't even need any law enforcement.  (don't take this serious, I'm just making a point)


----------



## custrel (Jun 30, 2009)

Darwin said:


> There-in lies the case of out-of-work-folk picking up a toolbelt and calling themselves, "handyman" or "skilled tradesman". They think just because they can put a nail in wood and connect to another piece, they've "built sumthing".
> 
> . :thumbsup:


That's a pretty broad brush you're using. There are thousands of skilled tradesmen who are out of work in almost every state. 

Just having contractor's license doesn't magically make someone ethical or good at what they do.

If someone is trying to run a company and compete with the WILL DO ANYTHING handymen who charge $20/hour and craig's listers in this economy, they are in for a lot of disappointment b/c there are a lot more people out there willing perform small jobs and hire unlicensed contractors for small jobs than the govt has resources to police them.


----------



## custrel (Jun 30, 2009)

CharlesD said:


> My idea is just do away with drivers licenses and let everyone mount a machine gun on the hood of their car or truck. Then when someone does something stupid that could have caused a wreck, just fire off a few rounds into their trunk or hood. then if that doesn't work, aim for between their eyes.


I think they already do this in Montana.


----------



## mattsk8 (Dec 6, 2009)

mudpad said:


> And you think it would be safer if 10 year olds, blind people, and repeat DUI offenders were allowed unrestricted use of motor vehicles? :w00t:


I think needing a drivers license is a good idea :thumbsup:. The problem is adding rules to it. 
I think we need to have a legal limit for drinking alchohol and getting behind the wheel; the problem is lately it gets lower and lower. How many times have you watched the news about a bad accident and heard, "they say alchohol may be a factor"? The problem w/ this statement is that it instantly assumes the guy at fault was hammered. In MI if I drink 3 beers in two hours and drive I'm legaly drunk and I'm 6'1" and weigh 200 lbs. I could drive home after 3 beers in reverse and be less of a threat than most people w/ no beers but if I got into an accident after 3 beers, they would say "alchohol may be a factor" on the news for all the world to see.
Plus, I took a bus to a concert once. I (by chance) happened to be w/ a bunch of cops. The cops got hammered all the way to the concert and all the way back from the concert on the bus. Once we got back they hopped in their cars and drove home. How's a guy ruin another guys life (DUI in MI costs something like $8k) when he's guilty of the exact same thing?

Now they're going to government mandate health ins !? You have to have it or you'll get a fine?

How about car insurance? Shouldn't that be an option in a state where we have (so called) "no fault insurance"? Wouldn't that mean you're responsible for your vehicle regardless of who's at fault so if you choose to drive w/out it you only assume liability for your own vehicle? Who do you think benefited from government mandated car insurance, us? Pretty sure it wasn't us it was the insurance companys. And they got the bill passed by padding the pockets of some scum bag politician.

How about global warming? Maybe we should institute some regulations about when you can fart because the release of CO2 is depleating the ozone. Or regulate how many miles a person is alowed to drive in a week. And we'll do all this based on a theory some fool came up w/ because the climate's changing. People are getting very wealthy off this theory.

How about airbags in cars? Now we can't have children in the front seat because the airbag could kill them but it's the law that new cars have to have them? My son's 10 years old and he is just legal to ride in a car w/out a booster seat ! It's amazing any of us 30 years or older are even alive being raised w/out all these BS governent mandates and regulations !

Bigger governent won't solve anything, it will make it worse. Politicians (for the most part) are greedy and looking out for number one. All a builders license shows is dedication to your business and maybe a certain level of integrity (and I mean maybe, that only applies to a few). It also shows that you gave (and will continue to give) the government more of your money to pi$$ away. It says nothing of quality of work. Honestly, they're not that hard to get. Take a class and pay a fee. Any idiot can do it.


----------



## custrel (Jun 30, 2009)

mudpad said:


> The flip side of that is if you want no regulations move to Somalia or somewhere like that.


:laughing:


----------



## qualify.com (Oct 12, 2009)

CharlesD said:


> Basically a license just give the cheat a way to cheat within the bounds of the law. An honest man will do right regardless of who's watching or not watching..


I say enforcement! ENFORCEMENT! ENFORCEMENT.

But then again who is doing that? wish i knew.


----------



## qualify.com (Oct 12, 2009)

mics_54 said:


> They don't want unlicensed contractors out of business.


Couldn't say it better if i try


----------



## Stonewall357 (Jan 22, 2009)

I hear all this about licensing. The licensed contractors discredit the unlicensed. When I started my company and inquired about getting licensed for credentials, I found out that I can get a state contractors license that is required only if you do jobs in excess of $25000. I rarely take on jobs over $10000. The city in which I do most of my work will issue a home improvement license that is required to do work in the $3000 to $25000 range but will not issue said license to me becuase I don't reside in that city. The county in which I live does not issue any type of contractor license. The only thing to do is register your company name at the clerks office.

So I joined the bbb, carry wc and gen lia. and make my company as visable as posible to the general public, showing there's no way I could hide if someone were looking.

So do you licensed contractors think I should carry the state contractors license for jobs over $25000? Or does not having the license diminish credibility when I only do smaller jobs well under $25000?

I probably will get licensed and move into larger jobs, but have trouble justifying it at this point. What do you pro's think?


----------



## custrel (Jun 30, 2009)

Stonewall357 said:


> I hear all this about licensing. The licensed contractors discredit the unlicensed.
> 
> So do you licensed contractors think I should carry the state contractors license for jobs over $25000? Or does not having the license diminish credibility when I only do smaller jobs well under $25000?


Out here the license/registration really just tells a homeowner that your company is bonded. It says nothing about your skill, quality, reliability, etc.

In Oregon you have to take a test, but it is open book and a freaking joke. Anyone who pays the $150(or whatever it was) can pass it.

There seem to be a few people who think what we do is some lost art, it isn't. That's not to say you don't need skill and knowledge, but people were building high quality homes a long time before they had to have licenses.


----------



## JumboJack (Aug 14, 2007)

Stonewall357 said:


> I hear all this about licensing. The licensed contractors discredit the unlicensed.


Speechless....:blink:


----------



## bwalley (Jan 7, 2009)

Haiti doesn't require contractors to be licensed either.


----------



## mics_54 (Oct 28, 2008)

steel reinforcing of concrete block buildings would have made the building stronger...you don't need a license to know this...and a license wouldn't have made a single unreinforced building more earthquake resistant.


----------



## Big Shoe (Jun 16, 2008)

I must see at least 20 vehicles a day with all sorts of businesses. No lic. #! Magnetic sign companys should be fined for making signs without lic.#'s. I can get a fine for not having mine.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

This forum pretty well reflects much of the herd mentality prevalent in today's compliance indoctrinated society. Fully 80% of the posters here still don't get it, thinking more regulation is somehow going to magically fix everything.


----------



## bwalley (Jan 7, 2009)

Willie T said:


> This forum pretty well reflects much of the herd mentality prevalent in today's compliance indoctrinated society. Fully 80% of the posters here still don't get it, thinking more regulation is somehow going to magically fix everything.


I am not a fan of the government interfering in peoples lives but, there are certain things that do need regulations and licensing, building trades is one of them.

Would you take your pet to a vet who was unlicensed or take your kids to a Doctor who didn't have a license?


----------



## abacab (Sep 16, 2009)

custrel said:


> :laughing:


or alabama


----------



## oldfrt (Oct 10, 2007)

Clearly,this discussion is about two different subjects.
The ability to do the job properly and the legal requirements(per location)

I won't argue the fact that some licensed contractors may do sub-par work,
but the monitoring of the trade can go a long way on cutting back on hack jobs
protecting HO's ,and giving the trades a bad name.
Permits can't be pulled here without the proper licensing.
Starting without permits warrants a fine.
The state tracks down and prosecutes offenders.
There will always be ways to get around proper requirements,but there is some control.

To those opposed to regulation,I can only ask why wouldn't you want 
to control the fly-by niter,and wanna-be low-ballers that have
consistently slipped into this market,especially in hard economic times?

You may have the abilities and not need licensing,so why allow those without
the abilities to slip,unregulated,into your area,without at least a minimal roadblock for 
control ?
HO's are protected here,if they hire state licensed tradesmen.
Fees from the funds collected help finish/correct shoddy/unfinished work.

Licensing won't alone keep the hacks at bay,but licensing coupled with the qualified inspections will go a long way in protecting the industry and controlling the number 
of unqualified wanna-be tradesmen.


----------



## mattsk8 (Dec 6, 2009)

bwalley said:


> Haiti doesn't require contractors to be licensed either.


New Orleans did.


----------



## mics_54 (Oct 28, 2008)

There is a huge difference in having the ability and desire to provide services in an equitable exchange and having a government entity bloat the system and costs of those services by excluding any portion of society at large from providing those services until they pay a fee or tax (license) to do so.

A home owner may currently perform his own electrical and plumbing and have it inspected for code compliance. Likewise an operator on any private facility like a pump station on the Alaska Pipeline can use non-licensed employees to perform those same functions without any type of certifications whatsoever.

I can think of only one reason why such a redundancy needs to exist. 

REVENUE


----------



## oldfrt (Oct 10, 2007)

mics_54 said:


> There is a huge difference in having the ability and desire to provide services in an equitable exchange and having a government entity bloat the system and costs of those services by excluding any portion of society at large from providing those services until they pay a fee or tax (license) to do so.
> 
> A home owner may currently perform his own electrical and plumbing and have it inspected for code compliance. Likewise an operator on any private facility like a pump station on the Alaska Pipeline can use non-licensed employees to perform those same functions without any type of certifications whatsoever.
> 
> ...


 Money makes the world go round.:thumbup:
If the small amount of fees aren't worth a little protection from the chaotic jack-legs
than why even have insurance or building codes?
Lets just let everyone that can see over a steering wheel get on the highway or let people get away with stealing.
Essentially,without some regulation,we're allowing unqualified hacks to rob HO's.


----------



## freemason21 (Aug 5, 2009)

Willie T said:


> Mics 54's answer is certainly not going to fly. But he is so much more on course than most of us.
> 
> Think about it. We keep on accepting more and more and more regulations and restrictive fee levying from almost every part of government. Why?
> 
> ...


 great post. the way i see it is we as a country can have our tax dollars spend criminalizing, prosecuting and ultimately making it harder for an honest guy to work (and costing us millions of dollars). all that time money and effort could be spent making it easier, cheaper, and better for honest working guys to get a leg up and stay in business.


----------



## bwalley (Jan 7, 2009)

mattsk8 said:


> New Orleans did.


What is your point?

The problems in New Orleans wasn't caused by lack of enforcement of building codes, it was caused by a few things, 1 the houses were built in an area that required levies and pumps to keep them dry and then the levy broke.


----------



## mics_54 (Oct 28, 2008)

> Money makes the world go round.:thumbup:
> If the small amount of fees aren't worth a little protection from the chaotic jack-legs
> than why even have insurance or building codes?
> Lets just let everyone that can see over a steering wheel get on the highway or let people get away with stealing.
> Essentially,without some regulation,we're allowing unqualified hacks to rob HO's.


As iterated previously...driving is the most controlled activity americans do. Everyone that drives takes drivers education, is tested, gets licensed, retested periodically and watched continually by armed govt representatives to make sure we do it right....yet...it also accounts for more injuries and deaths than any other activity we do. SO LICENSING AND GOVT CONTROL DOESN'T MAKE IT SAFER

Insurance companies can require all the same qualifications that govt control authorities do except we wouldn't need to pay the govt agencies.

Insurance companies can give you a reduced premium if you take training courses, operate in a desired manner for extended periods, maintain records and have regular employee educational meetings. 

A contractor can carry a bond and liability insurance and show proof of these to every HO that requests them ..WITHOUT ANYONE BEING FORCED TO HAVE THEM. A HO can DO DILIGENCE in entering into an agreement with a contractor and ask for references and they can research court and criminal records to see if there are any indications the contractor is a crook...WITHOUT BEING RAPED BY THE GOVT every year or two.

As I previously stated a home owner can do his own electrical and plumbing now and have it inspected by the municipalities if required but insurance companies and financial institutions funding projects can offer incentives for documentation and inspections...and DO.

Yet the SAME home owner isn't deemed able to hire a contractor to provide labor to perform these functions (except in certain instances governed by special interest dealings, unions, political favors,graft, nepotism, cronyism and legal loopholes). There is no need for more expense and intrusive control through the force of LAWS that only serve to add to costs and reduce availability.

We already have laws against fraud, theft, breaches of contract and negligence. A law requiring a qualification is redundancy in a free market. If home owners require contractor qualification to perform a function, governmental requirement isn't needed.

Your desire is that the government FORCE home owners and customers to use YOUR services under penalty of LAW rather than take the cheap, questionable, ill-advised route of hiring an undocumented/unlicensed individual. 

Caveat emptor.


----------



## Big Rig (Feb 23, 2009)

Mike Finley said:


> A better choice would be
> 
> State Wide Licensing with experience requirement and testing
> State Wide Enforcement with fines and lose of being licensed


AMEN Mr Finley!:notworthy The cost of conducting a contracting business properly (INSURED, LICENSED) is expensive,tedious and time consuming.

Unlicensed activity in our state is _rampant_, although changes may finally be on the way. Since the state and county coffers are losing revenue, there is a push to zero in on unlicensed activity and unpermitted activity, pushing fines higher for either and/or both and potential licensure loss for those not in compliance.:clap: So HACKS BEWARE! 
If you are tired of witnessing poor craftsmanship priced at licensed,insured contractor rates, report it. 

Inform your potential customers, who you'd like to have as clients, of the security that your license and insurance will provide for THEM. Influence them to request proof of insurance and license from your competitors who may also be courting them for work. 

A level playing field is necessary. Licensure keeps the honest people honest.


----------



## bwalley (Jan 7, 2009)

mics_54 said:


> steel reinforcing of concrete block buildings would have made the building stronger...you don't need a license to know this...and a license wouldn't have made a single unreinforced building more earthquake resistant.


Licensing like in Florida requires an extensive test and proven work experience, so the person with a license has proven to the state they are competent to be a contractor.

An unlicensed contractor may or may not know what they are doing and since an unlicensed contractor can't pull a permit, it will not be inspected.

Sure licensed contractors screw up, but most of the news stories I hear about problems a homeowner has with a job, the contractor does not have a license.


----------



## bwalley (Jan 7, 2009)

mattsk8 said:


> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> I think the way government officials demand how our work gets performed and how the work in our homes is performed IS socialism and it's only getting worse. Guys that are in the buisiness already are DEFINATELY going to call for tougher regs on how the work they're doing gets done because they can benefit from them- it would make it harder for anyone else to get involved and eliminate competition.
> 
> ...


The Government is not telling us how to do a certain job, they require you to comply with state and federal safety laws, and Building codes, they do not tell you step by step how to do a job and as long as you meet the minimum standards dictated by the building code, they don't care how you did it.

The Government is not taking ownership of a job by requiring licenses and following building codes.

Socialism is not the government establishing building codes or licensing laws, you may not like it, but it isn't socialism.


----------



## mattsk8 (Dec 6, 2009)

bwalley said:


> The Government is not telling us how to do a certain job, they require you to comply with state and federal safety laws, and Building codes, they do not tell you step by step how to do a job and as long as you meet the minimum standards dictated by the building code, they don't care how you did it.
> 
> The Government is not taking ownership of a job by requiring licenses and following building codes.
> 
> Socialism is not the government establishing building codes or licensing laws, you may not like it, but it isn't socialism.


any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

The "or" in this definition means you can eliminate "government ownership" and still reach the definition of socialism, soooo-
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".

Meaning that by the government dictating how the end result of a building project will be achieved by instituting government regulations for both parties involved (the builder and the customer) in the building process, whether those regulations relate to materials used or what path you choose to get to the end result, IS socialism.


----------



## bwalley (Jan 7, 2009)

mattsk8 said:


> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> The "or" in this definition means you can eliminate "government ownership" and still reach the definition of socialism, soooo-
> "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".
> ...


You have no idea what you are talking about.

YOU are the perfect example of why we need licensing and building codes in the United States.


----------



## mattsk8 (Dec 6, 2009)

bwalley said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> YOU are the perfect example of why we need licensing and building codes in the United States.


Actually your statement only reflects your view of why you think we need to have codes and licensing, not having anything to do w/ building quality. How in the world does my statement indicate in ANY way shape or form the kind of work I do as a builder?

Secondly, can you logicly (I know for you this may be a stretch) argue w/ my statement? That's webster's definition of socialism, not mine.


----------



## bwalley (Jan 7, 2009)

mattsk8 said:


> Actually your statement only reflects your view of why you think we need to have codes and licensing, not having anything to do w/ building quality. How in the world does my statement indicate in ANY way shape or form the kind of work I do as a builder?
> 
> Secondly, can you logicly (I know for you this may be a stretch) argue w/ my statement? That's webster's definition of socialism, not mine.


Requiring contractors to have licenses and having building codes is not socialism and Webster does not say it is socialism.

My point is, if you are not smart enough to know what socialism is, then I doubt you are smart enough to be a good builder, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.


----------



## mattsk8 (Dec 6, 2009)

bwalley said:


> Requiring contractors to have licenses and having building codes is not socialism and Webster does not say it is socialism.
> 
> My point is, if you are not smart enough to know what socialism is, then I doubt you are smart enough to be a good builder, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.


Yeah, still not a logical argument. I do know what socialism is, I think it's you that are misunderstood. Still waiting for you (wise one) to enlighten me, logicaly, as to the definition :whistling.


----------



## oldfrt (Oct 10, 2007)

mics_54 said:


> As iterated previously...driving is the most controlled activity americans do. Everyone that drives takes drivers education, is tested, gets licensed, retested periodically and watched continually by armed govt representatives to make sure we do it right....yet...it also accounts for more injuries and deaths than any other activity we do. SO LICENSING AND GOVT CONTROL DOESN'T MAKE IT SAFER



So you're saying driving will be safer without the regulations?:whistling

This statement:
*armed govt representatives *
gives a little insight on your over exaggerated point of view.
..... like the local law enforcement,(not govt reps)are armed for making sure we're properly licensed.:laughing:

.....if you want to interpret this as Socialism,(another over exaggeration),than maybe you need a better grasp on reality and should stop using Webster for a blanket interpretation to bolster your distorted view.:no:

..and this statement;
OR...not license anyone...let anyone pull a permit complete with the criteria to meet the inspection and code adopted by the regional governing authority...document the inspection provided by private enterprise...*get the benifits of reductions in insurance and financial institution services for your efforts...make services more available and less costly for everyone, make it easier to employ people and realise the savings in every aspect of the economy.*

...... doesn't even come close to making any sense!


----------



## mics_54 (Oct 28, 2008)

How does equating licensing to a system void of any regulation make sense. Let's call it what it is. Obfuscation of the issue to make your view make sense. I in noway implied that no regulation would be better but you must make the leap because your argument is weak. 

I said that licensing of businesses and professions exists for ONE reason...that is to provide a means to track your income. Businesses that do large volumes of work and make large gross incomes are revenue sources the authorities want to monitor because it's revenue. If the governing authorities cared about unscrupulous contractors doing shoddy work and taking advantage of you as a home owner or client and your safety they would in fact insist that all work is inspected, that you cannot do your own construction without proper training. 

But go ahead and fling the red herrings and strawman rabbit trails over and over...it's entertaining.

Less government intrusion does not equal total absense of regulation. Private enterprise can better serve the populace for inspections and offer reduced insurance rates for home owners and charge the people that are actually using the services instead of taxing everyone to pay for government functions. 

Can't you people cut the mustard on your own without people being forced to use your services? 

From your lack of ability to understand very basic fundamental constitutional governmental function and your tendency to ignore the bulk of every post in the thread but instead answer every point with an animated smiley face rather than address the issue I can see why you may need some one to grant you an edge in business through the force of law and special interest legislation.


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

OK, Kids.... Play nice. Papa's here to explain "Socialism" to ya. :thumbup: (You won't really know any more about it after reading this, but it's fun stuff to read.)

*SOCIALISM MADE SIMPLE *
Often what is happening in the world can seem complex and overwhelming. When politicians throw words around like capitalism and socialism, we often aren't sure what to make of it. I would like to assist you in understanding these complex concepts with a few simple, straightforward examples.

SOCIALISM: an economic system based on state ownership of capital. Meaning, the Government owns the means of production. You can't buy, sell, make, or do most anything, without approval. In many ways, it is what is going on now, just degrees of freedom.

CAPITALISM: an economic and social system in which individuals can maximize
profits because they own the means of production. Wow, gee, imagine that. You mean there is such a thing as an economic system where the individual actually has the freedom to choose and create their own destiny? Yes, that is the essence of capitalism, freedom.

Now here are a couple of simple examples to help you fully comprehend these complex concepts.

*EXAMPLE #1:*
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from each persons share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same relative, or proportional, amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six original contributors was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20, 'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


*EXAMPLE #2: Redistribution of Wealth *

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money". I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on an "Obama 08" Button, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--I pointed out the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was very grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.


----------



## oldfrt (Oct 10, 2007)

mics_54 said:


> How does equating licensing to a system *void of any regulation make* sense. Let's call it what it is. Obfuscation of the issue to make your view make sense. I in noway implied that no regulation would be better but you must make the leap because your argument is weak.
> 
> I don't see a void here,the licensing,although not 100% affective,traces the legitimate contractors for the purpose of regulation(not the void),and not *to provide a means to track your income*.
> Whether licensed or not,you report your own income as required by the IRS,not licensing!
> ...



Another unfounded accusation,assuming something without any facts.

If you had actual proof of the overall gov. costs involved and how they are levied against everyone,your argument might hold some creedence on this issue.
If you pay the state of Alaska a licensing fee,and there is no visible regulation,I can understand your argument.
Like I said earlier,locally there are positive results here with the licensing,and its funded through the fees.

  


I kept the animated smiley faces out so as not to distract you from actually reading the text.


----------



## freemason21 (Aug 5, 2009)

Willie T said:


> *EXAMPLE #2: Redistribution of Wealth *
> 
> Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money". I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on an "Obama 08" Button, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--I pointed out the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was very grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.


absolutely perfect :laughing:


----------



## JumboJack (Aug 14, 2007)

JumboJack said:


> The big,BIG difference between licensed and unlicensed is _accountability_.An unlicensed hack does a job wrong,unsafely or rips someone off and they could be next to impossible to find to get restitution for the HO.
> 
> A licensed hack on the other hand it would only take a call to the CSLB to report a problem.If they are truly hacks they will loose their license.
> Also a licensed contractor is,in mot cases required to carry insurance,both GL and WC.





mics_54 said:


> The ONLY garantee a licensing regulation provides is
> A) the service is more costly.
> B) it's illegal to provide the service without one.


See above post.

You guy's that can't,for what ever reason get a license crack me up...

edit....Someone needs to start "Unlicensed-UnInsured-ContractorTalk.com"


----------



## mics_54 (Oct 28, 2008)

I have a license and all the nazi type crap to go with it. I know it doesn't make me more honest, more talented or more educated.

Being licensed doesn't make you a contractor, good or bad. It just makes you a licensed contractor.


----------



## JumboJack (Aug 14, 2007)

....


----------



## JumboJack (Aug 14, 2007)

mics_54 said:


> I have a license and all the nazi type crap to go with it. I know it doesn't make me more honest, more talented or more educated.
> 
> Being licensed doesn't make you a contractor, good or bad. It just makes you a licensed contractor.





JumboJack said:


> The big,BIG difference between licensed and unlicensed is _*accountability*_.An unlicensed hack does a job wrong,unsafely or rips someone off and they could be next to impossible to find to get restitution for the HO.
> 
> A licensed hack on the other hand it would only take a call to the CSLB to report a problem.If they are truly hacks they will loose their license.
> Also a licensed contractor is,in mot cases required to carry insurance,both GL and WC.


:wallbash:


----------



## afkama (Jul 16, 2006)

mics_54 said:


> Being licensed doesn't make you a contractor, good or bad. It just makes you a licensed contractor.


In my state though, being a bad contractor could likely turn you back into an unlicensed contractor. Which I think is the point:
verify the minimum, at least, in experience and financial stability and then give the guy a chance to prove himself.
If he can't hack it then the presumption is that he goes back to work for somone more knowledgeable until he does. The homeowner is protected to some degree by the bond.
If you are even minimally qualified here the only thing that would cause a denial of license is a conviction for construction fraud or a sex crime.

It's not a perfect system, by any means, it's called a 'compromise'.
Also in Websters. 

To me this doesn't seem too onerous. As a contractor, if you can't handle the minor burden of acquiring and maintaining a license in good standing then you are doomed anyway. There is a lot more to being a contractor than being a builder. We make it sound like the homeowner is merely put at risk of having a squeaky floor if we screw up. A contractor can do serious financial damage to a homeowner. We've all heard the horror stories.

Code enforcement was put in place to protect people from builders.
Licensing protects them from contractors....
...and especially from those who don't know the difference.


----------



## Gus Dering (Oct 14, 2008)

I can appreciate what Both Mics 54 and all my fellow Californians have said.
There is a different culture up in the great white north where people want to be left alone and take care of their own affairs. The true frontier spirit still lives strong in most remote mountain communities. I saw it and lived it in the Durango CO area when I lived and worked there. It is empowering in a way to take control of your life without the long arm of a government body meddling in your daily affairs.

But we live a different life here in the Golden State. I think the intentions behind all the legislation is good and sound. Unfortunately the ones that don't play by the rules seem to have a huge advantage in the smaller job market. The government seems like its not holding up their part of the bargain when it comes to enforcement. Yet they are right there with their hand out to collect from anyone of us that wants to play fair.

But for those that have not lived and worked in a remote mountain area it is near impossible to relate to Mics 54 comments. I truly believe there is a culture gap between the two camps. Not unlike a whole host of other problems facing all of us on the larger stage.


----------



## afkama (Jul 16, 2006)

Gus Dering said:


> But for those that have not lived and worked in a remote mountain area it is near impossible to relate to Mics 54 comments. I truly believe there is a culture gap between the two camps. Not unlike a whole host of other problems facing all of us on the larger stage.


I understand the mindset. I visit relatives frequently in Valdez and used to own a cabinet shop in Green Mt Falls Co. and Mendocino County is famous for it's Code wars( also it's agriculture industry, so to speak.)

I don't want to get involved in a flame thread and with all due respect, but I was fortunate enough to start in this business long enough ago that I was able to work in localities that didn't have building enforcement.
I worked for a guy in Rock Springs Wyoming in the early seventies who got the bright idea that he could save some money on his 3 story apartment complex by not installing rim joists, on top of that he insisted we use greased nails.

On the other hand I recently had a client who wanted to build a group of tree houses on their property connected by rope bridges. The building department wanted us to meet code. Good luck.

LA counties building code is so over the top strict that sometimes it's just bizarre.

Having seen both approaches in actuality though and not merely theory I have to believe that both the public and our industry is better served by civic regulation. 

Left to our own devices....we kill people and maim their bank accounts.


----------



## CharlesD (Feb 12, 2007)

afkama said:


> Left to our own devices....we kill people and maim their bank accounts.


Personally, I have a greater fear that a government left to it's own devices will kill people and maim their bank accounts.

A man or woman with character will conduct their affairs based on honesty and integrity regardless of what the fellow man is doing.

You can't pass enough laws to make a crook honest.

You can't create enough adversity to make an honest man crooked.

Just my opinion---


----------



## Willie T (Jan 29, 2009)

Damn! I agree with much of what BOTH of you said. How do I deal with that?


----------

