Don wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote
Don wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote
If they're not licensed I don't see any reason to go any further.

One day you were unlicensed, uneducated and inexperienced.

True.

Then you plopped your ransom on the counter and magically you were
educated, experienced and LICENSED!

You've got the timeline wrong. I was educated, got experience working
for others, learned I needed to be licensed and insured to do business
and did just that.

Please Rico, you can do better than that, I know you can.

I believe that licensing doesn't guaranty problem-free contracting,

Good, we're in agreement so far.

and I also believe that unlicensed contractors are breaking the law,

So?
Unjust laws are meant to be broken.
If there was a law against eating you'd break it.

Lame analogy. If there's a lower speed limit going through a school
zone, and I know that all the kids are inside so there's no chance of
me creating a mini road pizza, I still slow down. Regulations that
don't have a majorly negative impact, but are just a little
inconvenient, are not the equivalent of forced starvation.

cutting corners and a risk that most people don't need to take.

Don't get me started on people that cut corners.
Don't forget, I built a home in recent memory and am more than knowledgeable
in what licensed contractors are capable of.
Quality control by licensed contractors and their earringed on-site
employees?
Please.

Please go back and search the newsgroup for our exchanges immediately
preceding and during the construction of your house. You might have
more respect for some of my opinions, even if they differ from yours,
from the improved vantage point of hindsight.

My question to you Don: You don't believe licensing is either necessary
nor moral, yet you're licensed, why?

It ain't about me Rico.
Its about your silly assed assertion that people that haven't paid ransom to
the state are inompetent and prone to error MORE so than people that have
paid the ransom.

("The day before I paid ransom I was incapable, but the day I paid ransom I
instantly became capable!")

You, and all the other asserters in this thread have failed big time to show
why your licenses make you better than people that aren't.
What you folks have done though is demonstrate in a public forum your
questionable character and your extreme fear that persons better than you
will put you out of business. Whining like little girls.

Interesting. Persons better than me... I don't look at it like that,
but let's work with it. The license doesn't make someone a better
contractor automatically - you're just playing word games with that.
But not having a license in an area that requires contractor licensing
does make someone worse. Someone may have the most awe inspiring grasp
of construction ever contained in one brain, but there's much more to
contracting than just knowledge of construction. It's a business. How
many skilled tradesmen do you think start up construction companies of
one sort or another, only to find out that the business end of the
business is eating them alive? They hate the paperwork, dealing with
customers, filing for permits, insurance, etc. You honestly believe
that person is a better contractor? I don't - I consider them a better
craftsman, maybe, but definitely not a better contractor.

Can it be conclusively proven that licensing improves the quality of
the available contractor pool? Maybe, maybe not - but there can be
little doubt that someone that is willing to ignore some regualtions
that are inconvenient for them are more likely to ignore other things
as well. Which areas of contracting do you feel are okay to ignore?

Licensing is not a panacea, but it is a starting point. Until the day
where there is an equivalent of an eBay-type feedback mechanism in
everything, how are people to determine the wheat from the chaff? I'm
not just talking just about contractors, but doctors, accountants, and
businesses of all types.

This is specifically addressed to you, Rico, in response to your attempt
above to smear me because you are unable to intelligently prove your faulty
assertion.

You're taking this way too personally, but that's up to you. There's
no attempt to smear, just calling you on a question. Which still
stands.

R