TubeNet

bloke wrote: Do any of you x-spurt economists have your analyses at hand?

The expensive pair are overestimating the demand for their services. Otherwise, they'd have some work.

The cheap guy is not charging enough. Otherwise, he wouldn't be swamped.

The question is: how much are you willing to pay to get the job done? If it's around $25...hire a teacher.

Greg wrote:So I got the calculator out....

C'mon Bloke, that means the guys only (trying to be)making $67,200 a year before taxes! That would be pretty damn good pay for a teacher and he wouldn't have to bring papers home to grade or do concerts, contests etc.

Poor guy. The $17 an hour dude is making $28560 before taxes if he's working 7 hours a day five days a week all year long. Yeeouch!

Must be time for a new calculator...

7 hrs/day * 5 days/week = 35 hrs/week

35 hrs/week * 52 weeks/yr = 1820 hrs/year

$17/hr * 1820 hrs/year = $30940

The way I read it, we're supposed to have some advice for the second guy, so, although he isn't going to actually get that advice. So, although this is not my line of work ...

He should try to offer a total price for a job, when dealing with guys who get wrapped up in things like whether there are two guys or one, and how much they earn per hour.

The problem with teachers as a wage standard is

• they're notoriously under-paid - not always, but enough to make them a poor standard
• they don't have to cover their health insurance and retirement out of their wages

bloke wrote:if they could stay inside the lines.

As I have flashbacks to the imperialist teachers who tried to force me to stay inside the lines...

Hire a shop teacher?

There are a lot of real estate agents looking for work these days - some of whom may actually know something about houses.

Offer the $17 hr guy an up front bonus to run you in ahead of someone else. Its a 2 day job. For the right deal he'll fit it in.

Doug@GT wrote: The question is: how much are you willing to pay to get the job done? If it's around $25...hire a teacher.

LOL

tbn.al wrote:Offer the $17 hr guy an up front bonus to run you in ahead of someone else. Its a 2 day job. For the right deal he'll fit it in.

I believe this is both an interesting and good idea. I'll bet your assessment is correct.

In our area they quote it per job. so, getting the house done is X amount and it includes (whatever, presure wash, prime areas that need it, trim, etc).

then you don't worry about $80/hr for an 8 hr job, or $17/hr for a 24 hr job. or whatever.

Congrats to the newlyweds and hope the house looks nice.

Greg wrote:So I got the calculator out.... Poor guy. The $17 an hour dude is making $28560 before taxes if he's working 7 hours a day five days a week all year long. Yeeouch!

Yeah... but it's probably cash.... equating to well over $50k a year. You might check his license... if there is such a thing in Blokepatch.

bloke wrote:

rocksanddirt wrote:In our area they quote it per job. so, getting the house done is X amount and it includes (whatever, presure wash, prime areas that need it, trim, etc).

then you don't worry about $80/hr for an 8 hr job, or $17/hr for a 24 hr job. or whatever.

Congrats to the newlyweds and hope the house looks nice.

I would bet that in your area jobs are quoted BOTH by-the-job and by-the-hour by various tradesmen. Some tradesmen will quote BOTH ways.

"By the job", the tendency of a less-than-honorable tradesman is to hurry and cut corners.

"The the hour", the tendency of a less-than-honorable tradesman is to work slow, find problems that do not exist, take too many breaks, and log false hours.

If you find good people, they are nearly always busy and often backed up with work.

When I can manage to find good people, I prefer to pay them by the hour:

- They will not cheat me.
- They realize that (due to high demand for their good work) they can work as many hours each week as they possibly can, and have no need to "create" extra hours of work.
- They are industrious (work fast and efficiently), and thus I know (with this type of worker) that by-the-hour (assuming a favorable rate) is probably going to be my best choice.

I actually find something of the opposite. The quality workmanship in my area is done by folks who give you a price, and explain what that entials, then do it when they say they are going to do it, and stick to the price. The folks around here who prefer to be paid by the hour, typically are not together enough to be efficient, and have a hard time doing the job right the first time, or don't communicate what there expectation of the job is, or what the total price might be like. I hire folks to do work that I mostly don't know how to do, or don't want to learn how to do efficiently myself (such as painting the house, not rocket science but would cost me way more in terms of equipment and time to do myself).

bloke wrote:When I can manage to find good people, I prefer to pay them by the hour:

If you find good people, it doesn't matter how you pay them. If they aren't good, the result will be unsatisfactory no matter how you pay them.

What I find annoying is the unwillingness of "contractors" to write and commit to "contracts". All my customers require me to do it, and on projects that have much more uncertainty that the typical "make this house blue" or "make these fallen trees go away" type of work.

When I have to hire someone, it's either a friend who I trust, or I resign myself to cleaning up after them to either fix their mistakes, clean up their mess, or both. And many around here charge Washington Exurb prices, thinking that all the people here must be rich. Many of them are now crying the blues, though (or learning Spanish).

I find I have had to learn how to do a lot of things myself. More from Poor Richard: If you’d have it done, Go: If not, send.

Rick "self-sufficient often to a fault" Denney

bloke wrote:Although there are somethings that might only end up being 99-something % of what the repair tech might have hoped for, I don't think a sane do-in-yerselfer would take apart and rebuild a Holton 345 valveset...and (nope) I don't want any dark green paint smears on my logs...at least not as many as *I* would leave.

My point was that when it comes to tasks around the house, I might as well do it myself, because anyone I seem to be able to hire will leave those green splatters in even more places than I would, and they won't even try to wipe them off.

When I find a competent pro, I use them. It's just not easy to find one these days, or around here.

Rick "who hires people to stain the siding, despite the mess, because of having no business climbing 40-foot ladders" Denney

How much does your 17 dollar an hour friend charge you when he falls off the ladder and can't do his main job?
or
Shall I assume as the contractor you are paying your hourly employee's health benefits.
Just wondering....
Peace.
ASG

ArnoldGottlieb wrote:Shall I assume as the contractor you are paying your hourly employee's health benefits.

I think you are confusing "contractor" with "customer." A customer has no responsibility to provide health coverage for someone he hires to do a job. If your barber slipped and fell while cutting your hair, would you be obligated to pay him for his medical expenses? Of course not.

Many self-employed people buy their own insurance...often times, it is a "catastrophic" policy with fairly low premiums but fairly high deductibles.

bloke wrote:You're forgetting that our good friend (yes, a friend with whom I disagree on many things), Arnold, is a self-admitted radical socialist...

A radical socialist??????

I thought they were all long gone...now where's my pitchfork and torch?

Actually, I don't believe I've had the pleasure of hashing one out with your buddy. And, what with the ban on Politikspreche here'bouts, I don't suspect I will.

Todd S. "self-admitted right-wing nut-job" Malicoate

Greg wrote:this sounds like you think people should be able to think and make decisions for themselves rather than having a stranger do it for them.....

God forbid.

That's why I got the smiley-face man to play my tuba for me.