petersonra said:I think both are important, and they are not mutually exclusive, and I am not even sure they are that closely related. I had some siding work done a few years back. I got several quotes. The lowest quote got the bid. He was half the price of the highest quote. He did a superb job. Same brand of siding. Why would I want to pay an extra $7000 to the high bidder? Because he had a nationally recognized name?
About the same time, I got bids for bathroom remodeling. Against my better judgment I went with the high bidder based on my ex-wife's theory that the higher price meant higher quality. I can tell you with some certainty it only meant a higher price.
Did you choose to not read or just ignore this part of my post.
All I was saying is price is less important to me than the quality of service and work I receive from a contractor. I'm not saying you should find the highest priced contractor you can and use him and you'll be guaranteed great service and a quality job.aline said:The cheapest guy may do a better job than the most expensive guy. It's hard to know.
I just feel the cost difference isn't enough for me to not go with a 200amp service. But that's just me.petersonra said:Salesman always tell you that about everything you buy. You have to draw the line somewhere, and especially when the EC directly involved thinks it is not worth doing, what makes you think it is?
When I built my house I thought a 125amp service was plenty so that's what I installed. But later I decided to add a second kitchen in the basement, a shop in the back and someday would like to add a hot tub and swimming pool. So then I was kicking myself for not installing a 200amp service to begin with.
I don't see this line item for owner benefits and compensation in the proprietor table. I see a line item for salary & wages but this is for employees not the owner. I never said there wasn't a line item in the corporation table.petersonra said:Interesting note at the bottom of the table that you either chose to ignore, or just missed.
Tip: Due to significant variances in owner compensation, it may be more meaningful to compare Net Income prior to Compensation of Officers.
That means that in reality, small EC are netting about 16.6% profits, rather than the 6.9% reported. Considering that WalMart is lucky to net 1-2%, that is a huge amount.
Actually, there is a line item in the table for benefits and owner compensation, despite your claim to the contrary.
I don't know what the "true" profit is on a job like this. It might be nothing to someone who is not very good at such things. And keep in mind, the main variable, government interference (aka permits and inspections) is not part of the cost shown.
In my opinion net profit is what's left over for the company after all expenses have been paid including the owner's salary and compensation. You don't have a net profit until everyone has been paid including the owner. The owner is an expense to the company just like everything else. If the owner were to take all the profits for himself the company would have 0% net profit.
The 16% net profit you speak of is before the owner is paid and compensated. I don't feel this is truely net profit. How much the owner takes in compensation would determine the true net profit. For evaluating the performance of a company it would make more sense to look at %profit before the owner is compensated since some owners take all profits for themselves leaving a 0% net profit for the company.
Last edited: