Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]You still need a social life or take up a sport to burn off some of your excess exuberance against all things conservative. You are wasting your youth![/quote]
Come on Zeit, you’re old enough to know that youth is wasted on the young.
Also remember Churchill’s great saying. “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” I suspect it will be a couple more years for Brian to figure out what this means.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]You still need a social life or take up a sport to burn off some of your excess exuberance against all things conservative. You are wasting your youth![/quote]
Come on Zeit, you’re old enough to know that youth is wasted on the young.
Also remember Churchill’s great saying. “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” I suspect it will be a couple more years for Brian to figure out what this means.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantSorry, I’m late to this thread. But getting back to the original post.
[quote] the $83.3 million Structural and Materials Engineering center. The facility will generate about 1,500 construction-related jobs over roughly the next two years[/quote]
Whenever I see numbers like these in the news I’ve learned to double check them. Suppose that half of the $83.3 mil went to pay construction workers. (I’m guessing that’s high, given all the materials and equipment that will be needed to build this building) $41,650,000 divided by 1500 workers means the average worker will get just under $28,000 for two years, or $14k per year. Oh boy, that’s gonna cause the construction worker market to rebound.
In truth, it’s possible that 1,500 workers will work on the project total, but many will only work for short periods of time. No way this project will “generate” 1,500 new construction jobs. Not even close. I really wish newspapers didn’t feel the need to echo some bs economic predictions that they’ve undoubtedly been fed by the supporters of this project.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantSorry, I’m late to this thread. But getting back to the original post.
[quote] the $83.3 million Structural and Materials Engineering center. The facility will generate about 1,500 construction-related jobs over roughly the next two years[/quote]
Whenever I see numbers like these in the news I’ve learned to double check them. Suppose that half of the $83.3 mil went to pay construction workers. (I’m guessing that’s high, given all the materials and equipment that will be needed to build this building) $41,650,000 divided by 1500 workers means the average worker will get just under $28,000 for two years, or $14k per year. Oh boy, that’s gonna cause the construction worker market to rebound.
In truth, it’s possible that 1,500 workers will work on the project total, but many will only work for short periods of time. No way this project will “generate” 1,500 new construction jobs. Not even close. I really wish newspapers didn’t feel the need to echo some bs economic predictions that they’ve undoubtedly been fed by the supporters of this project.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantSorry, I’m late to this thread. But getting back to the original post.
[quote] the $83.3 million Structural and Materials Engineering center. The facility will generate about 1,500 construction-related jobs over roughly the next two years[/quote]
Whenever I see numbers like these in the news I’ve learned to double check them. Suppose that half of the $83.3 mil went to pay construction workers. (I’m guessing that’s high, given all the materials and equipment that will be needed to build this building) $41,650,000 divided by 1500 workers means the average worker will get just under $28,000 for two years, or $14k per year. Oh boy, that’s gonna cause the construction worker market to rebound.
In truth, it’s possible that 1,500 workers will work on the project total, but many will only work for short periods of time. No way this project will “generate” 1,500 new construction jobs. Not even close. I really wish newspapers didn’t feel the need to echo some bs economic predictions that they’ve undoubtedly been fed by the supporters of this project.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantSorry, I’m late to this thread. But getting back to the original post.
[quote] the $83.3 million Structural and Materials Engineering center. The facility will generate about 1,500 construction-related jobs over roughly the next two years[/quote]
Whenever I see numbers like these in the news I’ve learned to double check them. Suppose that half of the $83.3 mil went to pay construction workers. (I’m guessing that’s high, given all the materials and equipment that will be needed to build this building) $41,650,000 divided by 1500 workers means the average worker will get just under $28,000 for two years, or $14k per year. Oh boy, that’s gonna cause the construction worker market to rebound.
In truth, it’s possible that 1,500 workers will work on the project total, but many will only work for short periods of time. No way this project will “generate” 1,500 new construction jobs. Not even close. I really wish newspapers didn’t feel the need to echo some bs economic predictions that they’ve undoubtedly been fed by the supporters of this project.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantSorry, I’m late to this thread. But getting back to the original post.
[quote] the $83.3 million Structural and Materials Engineering center. The facility will generate about 1,500 construction-related jobs over roughly the next two years[/quote]
Whenever I see numbers like these in the news I’ve learned to double check them. Suppose that half of the $83.3 mil went to pay construction workers. (I’m guessing that’s high, given all the materials and equipment that will be needed to build this building) $41,650,000 divided by 1500 workers means the average worker will get just under $28,000 for two years, or $14k per year. Oh boy, that’s gonna cause the construction worker market to rebound.
In truth, it’s possible that 1,500 workers will work on the project total, but many will only work for short periods of time. No way this project will “generate” 1,500 new construction jobs. Not even close. I really wish newspapers didn’t feel the need to echo some bs economic predictions that they’ve undoubtedly been fed by the supporters of this project.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]
A large percentage of “detections” are bs.
EG: my next door neighbor had the flooring in his place pulled up because a mold inspector (who, conveniently, was available to do the work) [/quote]Urban,
Doesn’t surprise me that many inspectors might be less than honest. Rule one about this should be, that the inspector does NOT do the repairs. In our case, the inspector did not even recommend people who do repairs.
So, I would second your view. Getting a good/honest inspector is more important than anything. Having the thermal imaging device doesn’t make him good or honest, it’s just one possible tool. And certainly don’t hire an inspector who is going to generate work for himself.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]
A large percentage of “detections” are bs.
EG: my next door neighbor had the flooring in his place pulled up because a mold inspector (who, conveniently, was available to do the work) [/quote]Urban,
Doesn’t surprise me that many inspectors might be less than honest. Rule one about this should be, that the inspector does NOT do the repairs. In our case, the inspector did not even recommend people who do repairs.
So, I would second your view. Getting a good/honest inspector is more important than anything. Having the thermal imaging device doesn’t make him good or honest, it’s just one possible tool. And certainly don’t hire an inspector who is going to generate work for himself.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]
A large percentage of “detections” are bs.
EG: my next door neighbor had the flooring in his place pulled up because a mold inspector (who, conveniently, was available to do the work) [/quote]Urban,
Doesn’t surprise me that many inspectors might be less than honest. Rule one about this should be, that the inspector does NOT do the repairs. In our case, the inspector did not even recommend people who do repairs.
So, I would second your view. Getting a good/honest inspector is more important than anything. Having the thermal imaging device doesn’t make him good or honest, it’s just one possible tool. And certainly don’t hire an inspector who is going to generate work for himself.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]
A large percentage of “detections” are bs.
EG: my next door neighbor had the flooring in his place pulled up because a mold inspector (who, conveniently, was available to do the work) [/quote]Urban,
Doesn’t surprise me that many inspectors might be less than honest. Rule one about this should be, that the inspector does NOT do the repairs. In our case, the inspector did not even recommend people who do repairs.
So, I would second your view. Getting a good/honest inspector is more important than anything. Having the thermal imaging device doesn’t make him good or honest, it’s just one possible tool. And certainly don’t hire an inspector who is going to generate work for himself.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]
A large percentage of “detections” are bs.
EG: my next door neighbor had the flooring in his place pulled up because a mold inspector (who, conveniently, was available to do the work) [/quote]Urban,
Doesn’t surprise me that many inspectors might be less than honest. Rule one about this should be, that the inspector does NOT do the repairs. In our case, the inspector did not even recommend people who do repairs.
So, I would second your view. Getting a good/honest inspector is more important than anything. Having the thermal imaging device doesn’t make him good or honest, it’s just one possible tool. And certainly don’t hire an inspector who is going to generate work for himself.
Participant[quote=ybitz]Have you guys heard of the use of thermal imaging during inspection to find water leaks?
http://sdinspections.com/thermal_imaging
Useful or just a gimmick?[/quote]I think it kinda depends on what you think you might find and how important that is to you. My wife has bad allergies to mold and we were looking at an older house, so we felt doing everything possible to find mold was critical.
The imaging found moisture under both sinks in the kitchen. Under one the mold was obvious, but the other was not. Also found moisture around the baseboards in the master bath. A visual inspection would have only found the mold under the main kitchen sink.
Due to the discovery of the mold/moisture, we were able to knock the price down about 7 or 8 grand to cover repair costs. So, from our perspective I would say the money for the inspection was well spent.
Worth noting, if you have concerns about energy savings, these cameras are very helpful at finding how well your walls and attic are insulated. So, that’s another possible bonus.
We used a different company, but I can’t remember their name off the top of my head. I’ll try to remember to post their name when I get home tonight.
[quote=urbanrealtor]
If there is enough mold to have an effect, then it will be detectable in other ways (like smell).
[/quote]I’d have to disagree. In our case there was virtually no smell from the mold, as it was well contained under the cabinets. While bad mold can often be detected by smell, I wouldn’t count on that. (And btw, the house that made my wife very sick when we first found out about her allergies did not smell noticeably of mold or show any obvious signs. I doubt seriously that a regular home inspector would have found any problems)
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=ybitz]Have you guys heard of the use of thermal imaging during inspection to find water leaks?
http://sdinspections.com/thermal_imaging
Useful or just a gimmick?[/quote]I think it kinda depends on what you think you might find and how important that is to you. My wife has bad allergies to mold and we were looking at an older house, so we felt doing everything possible to find mold was critical.
The imaging found moisture under both sinks in the kitchen. Under one the mold was obvious, but the other was not. Also found moisture around the baseboards in the master bath. A visual inspection would have only found the mold under the main kitchen sink.
Due to the discovery of the mold/moisture, we were able to knock the price down about 7 or 8 grand to cover repair costs. So, from our perspective I would say the money for the inspection was well spent.
Worth noting, if you have concerns about energy savings, these cameras are very helpful at finding how well your walls and attic are insulated. So, that’s another possible bonus.
We used a different company, but I can’t remember their name off the top of my head. I’ll try to remember to post their name when I get home tonight.
[quote=urbanrealtor]
If there is enough mold to have an effect, then it will be detectable in other ways (like smell).
[/quote]I’d have to disagree. In our case there was virtually no smell from the mold, as it was well contained under the cabinets. While bad mold can often be detected by smell, I wouldn’t count on that. (And btw, the house that made my wife very sick when we first found out about her allergies did not smell noticeably of mold or show any obvious signs. I doubt seriously that a regular home inspector would have found any problems)
XBoxBoy
-
AuthorPosts
