this is how I read it - it looks like it is a flat fee, to which 6 programming hours are tied to. But in reality the system is very simple and requires only an hour or so to program but being that the client does not know this, the integrator is making all of the money on the programming and little to nothing on the actual install.
Of course he may be farming out the programming and then simply doubling the outsourced pricing to make money himself as well.

Now, if I could be an installer with no headache and make $35 an hour, just show up, do my job for 8-10 a day and go home with nothing else keeping me awake at night, I think I might be in.

Or stay at home, collect unemployment, use your snap card and be a mooch. Welcome to America! :)

I've debated about chiming in on this one (if its preferred I'll delete the numerical example let me know)...and have decided to throw my 2 cents in.

It is 'possible' to run a business and make money* billing an installer out at $35/hour...are you likely to make a lot of money, no; but what should be looked at/analyzed in cases like this is Gross profit, and profit per hour of billable labor - it may be (and I'm pretty sure it is the case with the anonymous company), that they only pay their guys for onsite billable labor greatly reducing employee costs.

It's also possible that in this case most of the labor may not require a highly skilled CI and someone who makes 15/hour could be capable of the bulk of the install. (burdened not including fixed overhead allocations should come in around 22/hr cost - grossing the company a few dollars per billed hour).

On top of that, factor in the gross profit of the sale, even at an ultra low margin of lets say 10% on a 15k product sale the 'company' still nets about $1500. Now lets say that in an average install at a rate of 100/hr for installation might come to 1/3rd of the sale, and product might average 35%; the company with the reduced rates would stand to make about 1500 on labor; for a gross profit before fixed overhead of nearly 3k; not a huge profit by any means, but definitely incremental revenue that can help pay the bills...

...do we 'Want' to compete with this in general? no, as it devalues what we do. Is it possible to run a business like this? yes...its just way more work then its worth in my and probably most of your opinions (and a service risk to boot - unless everything is done T&M).

my 2 cents.

Good luck Bruce!

Hi Brian,

I notice on your webpage you are back on your own (a great story I'm sure!). Good luck with this, hope all is well.

Not to be a know-it-all, but independently is spelled incorrectly (thought you might like to know).

wow, wonder what happened there!!

Thanks for the note on the typo (corrected), I was a bit rushed when I updated it initially, many more updates will be coming (possibly a complete redesign depending on how things go). It is pretty exciting to be back on my own and being able to redesign my business from the ground up with 10 years of knowledge I didn't have the first go around, as well as a very loyal client base.

The separation could be spun positively or negatively by either side, suffice it to say, we've parted amicably and are working to forge a new business relationship in the most professional manner possible. Time will tell if the change(s) is(are) good for either or both companies.

Thank you for the wishes!

You're making way too many assumptions about a guy installing at $35 per hour. He picks up multiple mounts from the local distributor, and has a selection of anchors from the local Lowe's. Accounting consists of sticking the receipts in a file folder, and the invoices for work done. If he really goes crazy, he has an accountant. Burdened labor cost... LOL, he works out of his car, his personal car. Insurance.... either through a spouse working elsewhere, or none at all, just like so many other americans. Items like workers comp and professional liability insurance are for companies that have something to lose. If you incorporate, and have zero assets in the corporation, why would you need liability insurance?

So, I think it is you who doesn't understand business. I understand it pretty well. Sounds like you just know what you do, not what is necessary given a specific set of circumstances. For the guy I referanced working for $35 from a car, he's just not going to have that overhead, not if he's going to stay afloat.


The way I live... Hell No! I couldn't live in a backwater of some little town in the middle of nowhere on 25K, but I'll bet my lifestyle is a tad different than a hang and bang guy making $35 an hour.

The $35 an hour guy buys a bottle of 2 Buck Chuck... Me, I'll spend $100 on a bottle and not even flinch. So no. But are those guys here in the bay area, sure!


You do know the meaning of the word "most", don't you? I said "most states don't have licensing requirments.

Even assuming that...

Do you think "most" of those people on Craigslist are legal? How many of those installers pricied at $35 an hour on Craigslist do you think are US residents, or even here legally on a green card?

I remember the first time I moved here to the bay area, about 4 years before the dot.com bust. We were buying a new home, and it was being built. Came to see how things were progressing, and no workers were to be seen. Finally saw the truck for the builders supervisor, and asked what was going on. He said the INS truck had shown up that morning, and everything would be back to normal tomorrow.

Ignore reality if you want, but those who will install a mount for next to nothing are here to stay. The barrier to entry is just so incredibly low.

In your original post, you say 'company' not 'guy' in your first sentence, then make a reference to Best Buy. I think most reading that combination would assume a company with more than one 'guy.'

Even given that - a sole proprietor is still going to be giving up a huge chunk of that 56k to Uncle and the state. He still isn't taking that all home with him. Unless he's completely illegal. So yes, even he has a burdened labor cost. He may just be too dumb to know it.

Regarding licensing I missed your first reference in your original post. There you do say 'In most states...' I was commenting on your last sentence.

I know there are companies out there that aren't licensed or legal. I'm not blind to that fact. But I will also point those companies out to the state and potential client in a heartbeat. I don't use un-licensed subs, nor will I do work as a sub for another company that isn't licensed. As a matter of fact, I was on a project site this morning where the homeowner wanted the GC to use an unlicensed painting contractor. The GC told them no way, he wouldn't allow it. The liability is just too great. As a consumer, I just put a new roof on my house. One of the contractors that bid on the project was not licensed. Guess who didn't get the project?

And if you allowed your builder to use illegal / undocumented labor when your home was being built, shame on you. You are part of the problem.

Doesn't really make a difference, one guy or many. If you can hire them at a burdened cost less than $35/hr, hiring more if you can keep them working makes you money. Could I define a company and overhead and keep their burdened cost below $35, yeah probably. Would they be making really poor wages, yes.


Of course he won't. If he is like most, some of that money will sidestep the legal process, and go directly in his pocket. Cash business is notorious for this. Waitresses as a general rule don't really report all their tips. Even the IRS knows this, they just find it difficult to catch them.


So you're telling me a painter must be licensed in California? I believe they "may" be licensed. If they are not, then they have no ability to place a lien if they go unpaid. I think you're trying to equate unlicensed and illegal here. And except for plumbers and electricians, nothing illegal about not being a licensed contractor.


My home wasn't "mine" while it was being built. This was a large development, and the house wasn't purchased until finished. I was required to put down a deposit, but I had zero control over items like which contractor was chosen, as the builder held title to the property, not me. I couldn't have changed the situation, I just wasn't in control. Had I wanted to, all I could have done was walked away, at which point I would have said "Bye" to a $50K depost, and about the same in upgrades. Would you have walked away?

That is exactly what I'm telling you. California Licensing Classification C-33.

There is EVERYTHING illegal about not being licensed in California. If company is getting paid for services rendered in one of the over 40 some odd construction disciplines controlled and governed by the state, whether there was actually a physical contract signed or not, they are contracting in the eyes of California law.

Unlicensed DOES equal illegal in California. Your last sentence is 1000% false regarding any of those disciplines.

Oregon is worse!

You have to get a license to get a permit to get a license just to think about doing ANYTHING to someones home.

Since there is no sales tax,I guess they have to bring in some revenue from the contractors.

At least the inspectors have been reasonable and a pleasure to deal with,knock wood!

move to Kentucky...no license, training, certification required for any low voltage work. but, you have to have a state license, OJT, and provide credentials to cut hair...makes no sense.

Is it legal to make Moon Shine there?

It is if you don't get caught!!