America - The Official Thread

[arora]

Maybe what you are saying then is, that its a crying shame, that businesses need to charge a higher labor cost then you deem the work is worth because of all the hidden costs imposed by the government.

 

[FoolKiller]

"worth" $75 an hour? No...

Is it what people are willing to pay? If so, that is what it is worth. Unless you have some objective way to determine the worth or value of labor it is what the market will pay. I am willing to listen to how you determine worth for everyone, because I would love to argue the charges next time I have work done.

I wonder if you have any idea how much it costs to run a business.

I don't know the costs of a service business but I know a restaurant franchise (meaning no creative effort) can be in the millions.

 

[arora]

come to think of it, I think I see the deal now "I run a 25 mil a year business and those pesky associates steel all the money" Ok, unless I'm way off base... I've seen this silly liberal ploy before.

It's simply not the case, let ceo's make 10 billion dollars a year if they can. If the product or service costs too much, people will not buy it. Now if you want to talk about how lobbyists can manipulate markets with the aid of politicians, I'm all for that convo. Many here know that is one of my largest complaints. Open the free market, get rid of silly things like the epa, doe etc, find some way to elect honest officials that will follow the law.

cutting short trying not to rant

 

[a6m5]

"worth" $75 an hour? No... But it is what owners charge, most more than that. A three car garage close to me charges $92 per hour on all labor. Sometimes there are 3 total people working at the shop, including the boss.

If the boss makes $65,000 a year (questionable) and two mechanics make $46,000 per year, (very questionable) the shop still earns $10+ per hour hour from all customers during labor. Not a bad rate to cover supplies and overhead, insurance, etc. As well as the 40 magazine subscriptions in the waiting area by the crappy coffee.

You can't be serious. If that's how their operational cost is broken down, either the repair shop you are referring to really is horrible, or you have no idea what overhead of a auto repair business is.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

...either the repair shop you are referring to really is horrible, or you have no idea what overhead of a auto repair business is.

Go ahead then... Educate me.


I'm not sure anyone in this thread knows much about the operating costs of a repair shop. With fluctuations in labor/hr price as much as 18.4% between similar shops (size, services, length of time open), they must not be very constant.

The Shop you referred to has a very good reputation.

 

[arora]

the pricing inconsistency is probably parallel to the quality of service.

Seriously though, knows much about operating costs of a repair shop? It's not rocket science, you have of course some unique things like disposal but, insurance, taxes, payroll, etc. Nothing to out of the ordinary. I have a close friend who runs a body shop(known him for years) I've spent time drinking and b.s.ing with his mates some of which are mechanics, aside from the pricing guide book they use for labor estimates and a few complaints about how dealership shops operate, nothing special to business.

Please enlighten us.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

come to think of it, I think I see the deal now "I run a 25 mil a year business and those pesky associates steel all the money" Ok, unless I'm way off base... I've seen this silly liberal ploy before... ...

Not sure who this is directed at, but the $25 Mil is a common thread with some
of my posts. Our associates make average wages for the industry. "pesky" and "steal all the money" is not a common theme.

 

[arora]

What is your point then?

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

What is your point then?

The point is, your assumption of "I run a $25 Million business and those pesky associates steal all the money" was mis-informed and incorrect, not to mention assigning a position/opinion to my previous posts. Toss in a "Liberal" blah-blah-blah for a maximum swing and miss?

The mention of being a high ranking person at a large business was merely made to refute the previously proposed - I'll bet you don't know much about business...

 

[arora]

I apologize for that, but the question I was asking? What is your point? I can't follow what it is you are trying to say regarding auto shops etc.

 

[a6m5]

Go ahead then... Educate me.


I'm not sure anyone in this thread knows much about the operating costs of a repair shop. With fluctuations in labor/hr price as much as 18.4% between similar shops (size, services, length of time open), they must not be very constant.

The Shop you referred to has a very good reputation.

the pricing inconsistency is probably parallel to the quality of service.

Seriously though, knows much about operating costs of a repair shop? It's not rocket science, you have of course some unique things like disposal but, insurance, taxes, payroll, etc. Nothing to out of the ordinary. I have a close friend who runs a body shop(known him for years) I've spent time drinking and b.s.ing with his mates some of which are mechanics, aside from the pricing guide book they use for labor estimates and a few complaints about how dealership shops operate, nothing special to business.

Please enlighten us.

I am no expert either, but apparently, I am more familiar with the cost involved.

First of all, most repair shops experience slow times. And many of those shops that you say are overcharging go out of business, because they could not make ends meet, not necessarily because they were incompetent either. Shops need to charge labor that makes up for this fluctuation. There are no seasonal workers to lower the cost, at least not if you want qualified technicians.

Automobiles from the 90's are way more complicated than the vehicles from the decade before that, then decade before that. Amount of additional training needed for the existing techs to work on today's vehicles are increasing. These training cost serious money.

There are also things like tools, machines, software that are very expensive. This isn't one time process, of course. Replacement machines, new technology, more training, etc.

Another thing I can think of off the top of my head would be liability. If you work on your cars, you can probably relate. As vehicles get older, it becomes easier to break something when you are trying to fix something else. It doesn't matter how good you are, it happens. This risk is taking by the shop, and their labor charge needs to cover that as well.

I just caught the part about how it is in the auto repair "culture" to overcharge. The real overcharge is in the operational cost, and that's where the focus should be. Yes, successful repair shop owners do real well, but that's not any different than any other successful businesses.

 

[arora]

Yup, basically just business. At least the type of business I am used to working in. The feast or famine deal is very real but you learn to live with that with some prudent measures.

It's good old fashioned competition at the end of the day, nothing more. I still have no idea what BJB is on about.

 

[a6m5]

Yup, basically just business. At least the type of business I am used to working in. The feast or famine deal is very real but you learn to live with that with some prudent measures.

It's good old fashioned competition at the end of the day, nothing more. I still have no idea what BJB is on about.

Here's the thing. Trying to breakdown the operational cost, finance or climate of shop that you yourself don't run is a waste of time. It would be like me trying to justify the cost of Big Mac. I wouldn't know the whole story if I was the one who was selling it. And trying to use that knowledge that you think you have to back up your argument does not work.

 

[arora]

I owned and ran a successful commercial service oriented business for 15 years, what is it I need to know but don't? Other then the fact that I don't care for working with the public, small business is small business. I could easily adapt my knowledge and experience to run a mechanic shop ffs. Common now, where does all this voodoo stuff come from?

 

[a6m5]

I owned and ran a successful commercial service oriented business for 15 years, what is it I need to know but don't? Other then the fact that I don't care for working with the public, small business is small business. I could easily adapt my knowledge and experience to run a mechanic shop ffs. Common now, where does all this voodoo stuff come from?

I don't even know where you are coming from. Let me start again.

Statement was made that there is no way automotive repair shop could justify charging $75 an hour to repair a vehicle. I am saying that unless you are the one who is running the shop, there is no way that you could know this for fact.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[arora]

Oops, I must have pms

" And trying to use that knowledge that you think you have to back up your argument does not work."

I thought that was aimed at me, sorry

 

[a6m5]

Oops, I must have pms

" And trying to use that knowledge that you think you have to back up your argument does not work."

I thought that was aimed at me, sorry

No sweat, I just got confused. It's my fault too for sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong. I just wanted to point out that these repair shops are not getting "rich" off of their customers, and that I also understand the concern about the rising cost for such thing as auto repair.

 

[arora]

Na, it's my fault.

True they are not getting rich, just making a living as we all like to do. I would not worry too much about rising costs, it's not specific to any one business. I believe we are in a pivotal point economically around the globe, things might get worse but they will sort themselves out. Even battling the extra burden of silly governments.

 

[a6m5]

Na, it's my fault.

True they are not getting rich, just making a living as we all like to do. I would not worry too much about rising costs, it's not specific to any one business. I believe we are in a pivotal point economically around the globe, things might get worse but they will sort themselves out. Even battling the extra burden of silly governments.

I share your sentiments. I think the overpopulation and increased demand for natural resources are being downplayed to the general public. They can only contribute to what I feel is a chain reaction of cost increase in everything & everywhere. And as you stated, I also feel that it will sort itself out(and we will feel the pain), and I have no idea how government will help, or hurt things in process.

Edit: Oh, god. Are we off-topic? Probably. Sorry.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

America had an excellent Olympic Games. The magazine covers have already started. Get ready for cereal boxes, soda cans, granola bar boxes, and more - with gold medal athletes faces!

Go corporate machine go!

 

[GTsail]

Oregon man receives jailtime for collecting rainwater.

http://now.msn.com/oregon-man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater

I have found another picture of one of the Harrington reservoirs:Oregon reservoir

Decent size, perhaps its big enough to be stocked with fish!

Oregon has some pretty strict water laws, so its easy to understand that this reservoir may have run afoul of the Oregon laws.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

<Looks at neighbor's similar sized pond with decorative fountain on a 5-10 acre lot.>

That the best he can do? That's illegal? Every farm in Kentucky has something similar. I have a friend with one that has 3 foot carp in it. My wife's friend has one stocked with bass and blue gill to have kids from church over for fishing events.

Side note: none of them require a stream to be blocked (because someone would mention it) just a large hole that doesn't leak water below a certain point from the surface. Without integrating a stream it takes a year or two of average rainfall to fill but it is doable. And if you do integrate a stream, the water has to run out somewhere or it overflows and floods your yard. The best thing to do is have your overflow drain where the stream exits the area.

I still see no reason to make this illegal. That pond is full, meaning he is no longer retaining more water per year than he normally would.

 

[Joel]

The worst part is that there's probably a golf course with ponds that size within 20 miles of that guy's house.

 

[GTsail]

....Oregon has some pretty strict water laws

Oregon's water laws are based upon the principle of "prior appropriation". "First in time, first in right". This means that the first person to obtain a water right has first access to the water.

In this Harrington case, the Town of Medford, via a 1925 law, has the right to all water in the Big Butte Watershed. Link to the Oregon law: ORS 538.430

This law was passed in 1925 to insure adequate water for the Town of Medford. See link to the Medford Water Commission: Medford WC for a description of what the Town did in 1925 in order to insure adequate water for themselves.

Its my understanding that the Harrington property is within the Big Butte Watershed, and therefore, the Town of Medford has the first right to any water that flows into the Watershed (rain/snow melt or from springs).

The Town of Medford is essentially saying that Gary Harrington is "stealing" water from the Town's watershed, by the use of his damed reservoirs, which impede the natural flow of the water in the watershed.

Its my understanding that Oregon generally enforces their water laws by focusing on property "modifications" (ie. the dams). Under the assumption that the property modifications have interfeared with the normal and "natural" water flow.

It seems to me that this Harrington character would have been ok if his reservoirs only collected rainwater and snowmelt that would have stayed on his property, even if the dams weren't in place, but if the dams/reservoirs collect water that would normally run off his property, then the excess water being collected would be impermissible without a town permit.

To test this situation, the Harrington guy could eliminate the dams, and then show that all rainwater and snow melt remains on his property, and none drains off into the nearby streams and creeks. If he couldn't show that all water stayed on his property, then it seems to me that his dams would be collecting water without permission, and is actually stealing water from the Town of Medford.

I don't know the topography of this Harrington property, but perhaps parts of it are in a natural depression/self-contained valley, and therefore at least in some areas, the rainwater wouldn't leave the property whether the dams were erected or not.

Maybe the Town of Medford would allow him to keep one reservoir if it could be shown that a decent portion of the water doesn't normally run off the Harrington property (though after 10 year's of lawsuits, he's probably burned his bridges on a friendly settlement with the Town).

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

The Town of Medford is essentially saying that Gary Harrington is "stealing" water from the Town's watershed, by the use of his damed reservoirs, which impede the natural flow of the water in the watershed.

Its my understanding that Oregon generally enforces their water laws by focusing on property "modifications" (ie. the dams). Under the assumption that the property modifications have interfeared with the normal and "natural" water flow.

It seems to me that this Harrington character would have been ok if his reservoirs only collected rainwater and snowmelt that would have stayed on his property, even if the dams weren't in place, but if the dams/reservoirs collect water that would normally run off his property, then the excess water being collected would be impermissible without a town permit.

I'd buy their BS if their water supply were affected and it hadn't gone 25 years before someone noticed, and if after it was noticed that they hadn't granted him the permit only to come back later and throw a fit.

If I were him I would play their own overbearing government game against them and call the EPA. After nearly 40 years and an established fish population his property can probably get declared as an established freshwater ecosystem that will be greatly thrown out of balance by draining it. Let his intrusive town law fight intrusive EPA law. That will tie things up long enough that he will be dead by the time it is settled.

If nothing else he could probably get PETA in there to protest the destruction of a habitat and feeding ground for fish, amphibians, and birds. Or, stock it with a non-native species that will decimate the Big Butte River ecology if it gets into the native water system. I can think of 50 ways to make this whole thing a total pain for Medford without him violating a court order.

 

[GTsail]

I'd buy their BS if their water supply were affected and it hadn't gone 25 years before someone noticed, and if after it was noticed that they hadn't granted him the permit only to come back later and throw a fit....

I don't know if the Town of Medford's water supply has been affected by the withdrawal of this water. Perhaps back in 2003, when the issue was first broached, the town's water supply was just starting to be affected due to a local drought.

Two water permits were issued by the Water Commission on March 13, 2003, which granted Harrington permission to use the water that was contained in two existing impoundments. These two permits were revoked on May 12th, 2003 (60 days later).

Harrington said that he intended to construct a third reservoir, and requested a permit for this third impoundment, but this permit was never issued.

You advocate contaminating the Town's water supply in order to let Harrington keep his reservoirs?

 

[Keef]

No, he suggested that the man contaminate his own ponds with fish dangerous to local ecology, thereby rendering pond drainage more dangerous than leaving them there.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't know if the Town of Medford's water supply has been affected by the withdrawal of this water. Perhaps back in 2003, when the issue was first broached, the town's water supply was just starting to be affected due to a local drought.

We don't know because this isn't a requirement for them to enforce the law. But I have an idea that if it were an issue they would have said so in order to prevent protestors outside the county courthouse.

Two water permits were issued by the Water Commission on March 13, 2003, which granted Harrington permission to use the water that was contained in two existing impoundments. These two permits were revoked on May 12th, 2003 (60 days later).

Why were they revoked? How has a legal activity in 2003 become a jailable offense today with no change in the law?

Harrington said that he intended to construct a third reservoir, and requested a permit for this third impoundment, but this permit was never issued.

So they meet half my criteria for complaint on one of three reservoirs? And no government has yet satisfactorily explained to me why I need a permit to do work on my property that neither damages or infringes on anyone else's property and rights.

You advocate contaminating the Town's water supply in order to let Harrington keep his reservoirs?

Um, nope. I did advocate disturbing the peace and wasting government money by creating legal and political entanglements and PR intrusions though. I also advocated defending a thriving ecosystem that the property owner wishes to maintain.

Did I mention any contamination at all?

 

[GTsail]

....Why were the permits revoked?

So they meet half my criteria for complaint on one of three reservoirs? And no government has yet satisfactorily explained to me why I need a permit to do work on my property that neither damages or infringes on anyone else's property and rights.

How has a legal activity in 2003 become a jailable offense today with no change in the law?

I have not seen a specific answer as to specifically why the Water Commission revoked the permits, but I suspect that they felt that too much water was being impounded in the reservoirs.

Because the Town of Medford, by law, has the right to essentially all water in the Big Butte Watershed. The water is the property of the Town of Medford and has been since 1925.

Because back in 2004, there was a court order issued to Harrington to remove the dams and to drain the reservoirs since he did not have a permit to retain the water. Its my understanding that Harrington drained the reservoirs, but did not remove the dams, so the reservoirs were refilled again in a year or so. Harrington is therefore out of compliance with this court order.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

I have not seen a specific answer as to specifically why the Water Commission revoked the permits, but I suspect that they felt that too much water was being impounded in the reservoirs.

Defined by whom?

Because the Town of Medford, by law, has the right

Why? Because the town of Medford said so? When Peter votes to rob from Paul and Paul gets no say Peter always wins. It may be legal but it is not right.

to essentially all water in the Big Butte Watershed.

Greedy SOBs aren't they? If this were a corporation people would be crying water fowl. But hey government can do no wrong. The people who determine what is justice cannot commit an injustice.

Because back in 2004, there was a court order issued to Harrington to remove the dams and to drain the reservoirs since he did not have a permit to retain the water.

We are missing a step between got permits and had permits taken away.

Its my understanding that Harrington drained the reservoirs, but did not remove the dams, so the reservoirs were refilled again in a year or so. Harrington is therefore out of compliance with this court order.

Protest by peaceful defiance. I approve.

Honestly, they are lucky he didn't remove the dams before draining to see just how much Medford needed all that water.