PDA

View Full Version : Lowering Your Rates



Cass
11-08-2008, 09:01 AM
Has any one thought about or have you lowered your rates due to the economy?

master plumber mark
11-08-2008, 09:15 AM
Cass.....

I would guess that over in Ohio
things are looking pretty grim right about now..
and eventually it will be infecting the rest of the mid-west .......once GM goes Belly Up.....

I guess you got to do what you go to do to adjust for the economics of the region....



Presently the Unions around here have laid off quite a few
people.....with about 300 sitting onthe bench

and now they are crying about no work....

(but they still got their big benefit packages ) ......I used to envy....

----------------------------------------------------------------------



What really amazes me is that Congress
will bail out a bunch of New York Brokers , Theives, money lenders,
and Bankers that have been gambling like drunken fools on a Riverboat ....
for the past 10 years...

they literally have writtern them a BLANK CHECK with our money....


but they wont or have not yet bailed out the very
industrial base and roots of our very economy...

perhaps they want to just snuff out all industry
in the USA and send it all down to Mexico??


perhaps they still believe in that "one world order"
and this is the sacrifice we all have to make...



Now that NAFTA has gutted this country like a fish,

what do we do with all the jobs gone?


I think that the party is over and Mr Obama has been left
with the check.

Cookie
11-08-2008, 06:30 PM
I don't think you should lower your rates. Your rates are fair and honest.
People who are not, then, should.

nhmaster
11-08-2008, 07:26 PM
How's come when the property values go down your property taxes don't.:D Seems sort of unfair to me.

Unless my cost's lower, lowering rates would be suicide.

Redwood
11-08-2008, 09:43 PM
With fuel going down my costs did drop...
It's catch up time for me the rates are set!

Cass
11-09-2008, 04:50 AM
I haven't lowered or even thought of lowering my rates...I just thought I would pose the question...

hj
11-09-2008, 06:40 AM
I think that the party is over and Mr Obama has been left
with the check.

And just where do you think he is going to get the money to cover that check? Or for all the "free" programs he promised? Do not reduce your rates because he is going to have his hand in your pocket and you will probably need that extra to survive his "help".

master plumber mark
11-09-2008, 07:20 AM
I think that the party is over and Mr Obama has been left
with the check.

And just where do you think he is going to get the money to cover that check? Or for all the "free" programs he promised? Do not reduce your rates because he is going to have his hand in your pocket and you will probably need that extra to survive his "help".


I agree with what you are saying, but when he
finally gets his hand in the pockets of the middle class....

he will find that their is very little left there to
"spread the wealth with"


With GM and Ford about to go belly up....
their is going to be a "level playing feild"
but its one where the middle class gets pulled down
into the lower class.........

its just not the dream that he had in mind.....




Also, he is not going to be able to
shake down the ultra rich....you know that is not
going to happen...

I dont see Ophra Whinfrey or Warren Buffett giving up half their wealth
to make the "dream come alive".....




Mr Obama has been handed an absolute disaster to deal with,
and I pray that he can somehow pull us out of this economic mess
that George Bush has made of eveything..


HJ... the party is over and he has been left holding the bill.....

master plumber mark
11-09-2008, 08:22 AM
just sitting here cooking bacon and makeing eggs.....

COOKIE....

I remember when money was dropping off the trees,
back from 1998- through 2001.....

I could not get an anyone to work for less than
$20 per hour plus a truck and benefits...
my employees acted like that they were doing me a favor
just showing up every day......


Bill Clinton had made into law NAFTA. and no one
wanted to do any of the dirty manufacturing jobs......

We gave away all our manufacturing jobs
and Let the Mexicans move in to do all the
jobs that all the lazy americans would not do..


Ross Perot said back in the Mid 90s that there would
be a "giant sucking sound" when we let all our jobs
be shipped down to Mexico

how the screw has turned......


what will everyone work for today???..

Cookie
11-09-2008, 09:05 AM
Well, what is scary to me is if he appears to be a pushover with other countries. What has kept us relatively safe, was being seen as a very aggressive powerful country. If he goes about pulling out troops everywhere, saying, " I am sorry, I am sorry..." we are going to be sorry for sure.

I am for free programs, I am for helping others no doubt about that at all; but, it can also, lead to socialism. That is what WW2, was all about, eh. Got to have balance.

Terry
11-09-2008, 09:38 AM
Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) a pushover?

He took an entire race (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/15/obamas-fathers-day-speech_n_107220.html) to task during the election, asking them to do more. I don't think a weak person would have done that.

His theme for the election

"Yes we can!"

His message has been one of encouragement.
The hope that the rest of us should have right now, is that more are encouraged to do their best.
That doesn't mean doing less and getting more.

And if McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain) had been elected, I'm sure he would have expected more from the people too.

At this point in time though, for those that have felt that they had no hope of having a better life, there is now no excuse.

If we can get more people engaged in the active process of production, raising kids, helping others, showing up for work, getting more education, where is the glass ceiling now?
The United States is a huge melting pot, with contributions from around the world.
Now any father can tell his kids, there are no limits.

He is a graduate of Columbia University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University) and Harvard Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School) where he was president of the Harvard Law Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review).

I was raised in an area where it was assumed that every kid went to college.
It was always

"Where are you going to college Terry?"

Imagine if everyone lived with that expectation.

Cookie
11-09-2008, 10:42 AM
Well, now we know who you voted for, :D

I am just saying, that I am afraid he will weaken our military, he doesn't want us in any foreign country. He said that. I don't believe in war either, but, I don't want to be invaded either. Just my theory on this. He wants to pull out all troops. I wonder how smart that is?

The college my boys went to is 17,000 a year. It is considered an international college, and just a few miles from my home. Kids from all over the world can come there and get educated for free, while I paid for my sons. Just the way it is. I am glad the kids can come get an education and take that education back home to teach in their own countries; but, one of the really sad facts is, most yes, most of them stay here and earn mega bucks for years and years, while never ever paying back a dime.

They were supposed to share their knowledge with their own countries. It is never enforced.

Fathers could always had told their kids their are no limits. The only limits are the ones we place on ourselves and accept to be true. Look back in history.

My own father said when I told him, I was going to college, " you will just end up getting married save the money." Well, I loved him, but I also, loved getting an education. I had a dad,who taught me electronics at home; but one who didn't support me educationally because of the expense, which I paid for alone.

Now, with my own kids I was different. I encouraged them, no matter what their gender. Am I a better parent than my dad was? Am I a better mom than my mother was? My mother was illiterate up until, the time I taught her to read and write when I was 15. I encouraged her and she was without a doubt, the smartest person I ever met in my life. She didn't go to school let alone Harvard. She didn't read a newspaper until, she was over 40, she couldn't read a can good in the A &P, but she raised me, and I cared enough to teach her.

Can we make a difference in people's lives? You betcha. There was never a reasonable acceptable excuse not to, and you don't have to be a certain color, a certain sex, or have a certain position to do so. You don't even need to wear red shoes.

You just got to care. ( and like Obama have the best of writers)

hj
11-09-2008, 11:30 AM
Do you really think Bush did this ALL BY HIMSELF? Maybe Congress should get a mirror and check who is reflected. THEY make the laws and all Bush can do is say Nay or Yeah, and if enough of them agree he cannot even say Nay. Who writes and votes for the "pork" projects? Who approves or rejects the oversight committees? Which way was Obama voting when all these came up while he was a Senator? Who gave the CEO's 700 billion dollars and told them to spend it anyway they want to, i.e., parties and acquistions, rather than making credit available. Congress is writing the NSF check for the economy, and is telling us we have to make the deposit to cover it.

Gary Slusser
11-09-2008, 12:55 PM
Here's a copy of an email I received a couple weeks ago; I've added a paragraph to the end. I can't find anything to prove any of it wrong...

Subject: The "Other-Sides-Of-The-Story"

Since you won't be reading about this in The New York Times, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times; nor will you be seeing it on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNBC; the following is a condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis":

1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc. Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.

How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market? Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.

1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stock holding few.

1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robert. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.

1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, moths t of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.

Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority home ownership rates are shrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.

2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.

2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding home ownership" The bill went nowhere.

2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.

2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster.

A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers were asked for $700 billion!!

Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.

This is my addition (Gary Slusser) to the email . And now since Obama has won the election, there is talk of another 300 billion for the financial industry, and 30 billion for the car companies, and billions upon billions for health care, more money for people that can't pay their mortgage, more for education and on and on and on.

Yet many people don't think to ask where all that money is going to come from. IMO, it will not come from just the wealthy. And when taxes are raised overall (plus the Bush tax cuts expire the end of 2009 IIRC), many businesses and jobs will disappear and prices, along with the "rates' mentioned in this thread will increase. Especially if we go into deflation.

BTW, the last time the world was in such a financial crisis (1929), President Herbert Hoover raised taxes on the wealthy, then considered to be $100K and over, that caused the US and worldwide depression to worsen and it took longer to get out of it, and the only thing that finally brought the end of it was WWII.

Redwood
11-09-2008, 08:34 PM
That's interesting Gary but the title fits...
"Subject: The "Other-Sides-Of-The-Story""

It tells a remarkable one side of a story involving 2 political parties that have steered the US down this course for over 40 years now...

Of course the Republicans had nothing to do with this and worked to stop all these bad choices...:eek:

Gary Slusser
11-09-2008, 09:36 PM
If you have any facts that have been left out, I'd like to see them. In most of those 40 years the dems have been in control of congress, as they have for the last two years. Nationally, things aren't going so well now, kinda like the cities and states that have been run by the dems for decades.

leejosepho
11-10-2008, 03:47 AM
Someone sent this to me a few days ago, and I found it insightful:


545 People
by Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices. 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses, provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

(Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.)

Cass
11-10-2008, 05:07 AM
We are responsible because we as a Nation Collectively put them where they are.

We should vote them out but agendas keep them in.

If the US Constitution was being followed correctly the Federal government would be handing the States a Tax Bill every year and we as a collective nation would be better able to see just how and how much of our $$$ was being spent and we would be better able to hold the elected officials accountable...as it is now Taxes are removed from your check, weekly for most, so the effect is not noticed as it would be otherwise, self employed people are better able to see it as we have to pay out on a continual basis.

What most people don't realize is that income tax law (Title 26) is directly related to your SS # which is voluntary to receive, absent a SS # you couldn't lawfully be taxed...but you also wouldn't be able to receive any SS benefits.

The government created a Catch 22 and We the People are stuck in it.

jar546
11-10-2008, 06:13 AM
To answer the original post I will answer this way:

I have been through this before and:

1) never reduce your prices, never ever. It is a sign of weakness and desperation. You are still worth what you were charging and your expenses have not decreased. It is harder to play catch-up later.

2) This is an opportunity to raise your prices just a hair. You are selling yourself and if you are quality and do a good job with a great reputation then price in not the main factor in why people are hiring you.

3) When your prices cater to those who are too cheap to understand quality then you are asking for trouble down the road.

Just keep charging what you are worth. Adapt to your situation in order to survive in other ways. Diversify.

Cookie
11-10-2008, 07:02 AM
Yikes, I hope not all professions will raise their rates a hair, for we are already in a pickle. A buck can only be stretched so far, yours, mine and ours.
Today, diversify means to spread your losses many different ways.

Mort
11-10-2008, 04:00 PM
3) When your prices cater to those who are too cheap to understand quality then you are asking for trouble down the road.



There's iron in those words kimosabe. With todays economic conditions a service (and/or goods)provider becomes more of a target. There's quite a few people ready to sue at the drop of a hat. I've lost a couple of pretty long term customers recently that decided short term costs were better for them than long term good. I wished them well.

Mort

Thatguy
11-10-2008, 04:58 PM
FWIW,

To maximize your profits you may need to lower or raise your rates. If you have historical data on your business you're in a better position to know which way to go.

If your rates are very low you'll have a lot of business and won't be taken seriously.
If your rates are very high you'll have very little business but you'll make a killing on each job.
Neither of these maximizes profits.

If everyone around you lowers their rates, you must.
If you can all hold the line, then as a group you'll be better off, but then each person needs their own supply of dollars in reserve.

nhmaster
11-11-2008, 05:16 AM
There is no voodoo here. If your cost of doing business has not gone down, neither can your price unless you like circling the drain.

Cookie
11-11-2008, 05:37 AM
I think this might be a good time for all plumbers who are working for plumbers to ask for raises! Just a hair now. :) Let's spread that wealth.
...and, if they are a really good employee add health bennies, too! Don't be cheap now. :)

hj
11-11-2008, 09:47 AM
I think this might be a good time for all plumbers who are working for plumbers to ask for raises! Just a hair now. :) Let's spread that wealth.

I thought that was what Obama is going to do anyway. As one of my friends told his employees, "If he gets elected, there is no reason for this office to stay open 6 days, because the government will just take the excess in taxes. So I will be open three days, and all of you except one, or two will not have a job. But HE says he will take care of you anyway, so it is not a great loss."

nhmaster
11-11-2008, 04:19 PM
See, greedy companies finding ways to keep from paying the way for the loosers of the world already. Don't they know that it's their duty to support illegal aliens and scumbags.