Don wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote
Don wrote:
"Bill" wrote
You shouldn't hiring techs. You should be hiring licensed contractors.

Most moaners problems stem from hiring the unqualified.

Licensure in no way insures competency.

But the odds are higher that an unlicensed person is incompetent or
cutting corners in other areas.

Nothing like a guess to solidify your argument.

That's why they're called odds.
1. The ratio of the probability of an event's occurring to the
probability of its not occurring.
2. The likelihood of the occurrence of one thing rather than the
occurrence of another thing, as in a contest:

But hey. You get
what you pay for.

Actually, if you hire someone that has paid ransom to the state (you call
it
licensure) you are getting a little less.

Or you may be paying a bit more, but it's not wasted money.

Its really none of your business what other people waste their money on, is
it?

You consider it a waste because of your personal experiences with your
licensing. That's a reactionary viewpoint, albeit an understandable
one. You consider yourself an exception to most rules, so why wouldn't
you believe that you'd be the exception to the unlicensed? You
wouldn't get licensed if you could avoid it on general principle and
your antipathy to any form of government. Other people do it because
they're cheap/crooks/don't-want-to-be-accountable/can't.

I don't consider it a waste because I don't like seeing people hurt -
even people I don't know. Do you?

It's kind of like panties. If all of a sudden the dresser drawer is
full of new sexy panties (and they're not yours there just _might_
be something going on there. It's a warning sign. Unlicensed is a
warning sign for contractors. It might be nothing, but you'd be a fool
to not heed the warning.

R