I would tell her where you were going and send her a couple selfies from where ever you are. Sounds like she really doesn't trust the people you're going with. I would suggest to bring some cash with you so if you are driving someone elses car and end up somewhere you aren't comfortable being at, you can call a cab and get out.
Another thing to seriously plan for is trending. There are always new and exciting trends in kitchens/bathrooms. Don't get sucked into the hype. Find something you can live with for the next 10-15 years. I can't tell you how many people ive dealt with that are willing to spend 10-15k to get rid of something they now hate because they followed a fad.
The other thing to really spend on is insulation. Our former house was over insulated with r50 blown in the attic, r24 blown into the walls including interiors, and r30 in the floors. In winter, with temps averaging in the teens, our electric was 70-80 a month and our neighbors was 200-300. Summer was the same way. You make up the cost in a hurry.
It doesn't make a difference if he's gay or not, it's not any of our place to judge him. If you are religious, then you know God is the only one who can judge him. If you are not, then you probably don't care anyway.
Gman picked Ealy because he was a better fit in our defensive scheme. If Sam had been the better fit, he would probably be a Panther. I hope he finds success as a NFL player, just not against us.
You're wrong. They don't reflect your personal beliefs, but if you are a gun owner, they do represent you.
Someone making terrorist threats does not represent all gun owners. That's like saying drunk drivers represent you because you own a car. You can't make an extremist fringe represent the whole, especially when they are breaking the law. I'm not a member of the NRA so they don't represent me either. The majority of owners I do know including myself are very vocal about responsible gun ownership and safety. We preach it and teach it. Unfortunately, being responsible is boring and doesn't make the news and doesn't draw a lot of attention. We spend our time trying to make a difference where we can by helping people understand the responsibility of owning a gun and how to be safe using and storing a gun. We also teach the consequences of being irresposible or stupid.
I have spoken out about this topic to my representatives and guess what. They didnt care. One actually told me he had to go because he had other things to do. He was going door to door at the time trying to get my vote.
I do think there are things we can do that could seriously impact gun safety and keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people.
1. Require firearms to be safely stored when not in use, and if your gun is used in a crime because you failed to keep it properly stored, you are held criminally and civilly liable.
2. Owners are required to spend a required number of hours in training annually to retain your gun license.
3. Ccw holders should be required to perform shoot/no shoot performance drills semi annually to keep their ccw. Regular owners of handguns every 4 years.
4. All owner must demonstrate the ability to disasemble and reasemble their weapons, as well as the ability to load/unload safely.
5. Before you can purchase your first firearm, you must take an intense education class, similar to a drivers ed.
It's a start, and it could have a serious impact. It wouldnt be taken well, but when it comes to the safety of human life, can we really afford to ignore common sense?
"Responsible gun owners" are all for restrictions so long as it's restrictions on other people.
Actually, most "responsible gun owners" are for enforcement of current laws before Congress goes and puts more laws in place that do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Most of the gun owners that I know are responsible. They practice what they preach when it comes to gun safety and responsible gun ownership. But with every group, you get idiots who freak out whenever someone mentions restrictions. Those people don't represent me and others like me. If you want to make a difference, and I mean a real difference, in gun safety, work with gun owners to figure out how to make things safer. You might find out that all "responsible gun owners" aren't crazy nut jobs, and how willing they are to help make everyone safer.
That is an interesting take. But you went from the building process to the after effects of having said mansion to boost the local economy.
Since you are counting the 2-3 staff, and not all people living in a mansion have any staff at all (although I guess this depends on how you define mansion so that is debatable) you have to take into account the people also moving into the 99 houses. Plus often when you have the money to build a mansion like you seem to be describing, often they are importing materials from outside the local area. Most of the local economy stimulus would be labor, not materials because they will import the best materials from around the world for a house like that.
But, you also I guess to make your math work assume that 99 starter homes would be inhabited by only local people who do are already contributing to the local economy. More likely there will be people from all over, including new people from other cities or states moving into these 99 houses. That creates new workers looking for local jobs, that creates an increase in consumer spending, that creates increased demand allowing more jobs for production or by competition opening businesses to fill that demand.
So like you said it may be hard to say, but I don't think 1 mansion would have the same long term local impact as 99 starter homes.
But we are both dealing with a lot of hypotheticals here lol
I really tried to look at it from the point of what does the building of the structure and the structure itself provide. I didn't take into account owners because it's really hard to say what he/she brings to the table. I completely understand what you are saying though about local jobs and increase spending etc, I just saw no way to feasibly account for that with so many variables. The reason I included the staff was because I tried to figure what the home would require for upkeep regardless of who the owner was. I figured 1 groundskeeper/maintenance guy and 1-2 housekeepers for cleaning would be needed as full time employees dedicated to the property.
You are correct, a lot of products are brought in from outside the local area. The big difference though is that many of those products are transformed locally. For instance, granite may be cut raw from a quarry 3 states away, but it is cut again to form and polished locally. Hardwood reclamation is another big one. Those pieces are milled to specification, again local because it has to fitted perfectly. A lot of metalwork is custom fabrication. Cabinets build from boards instead of pressboard are usually done locally too. All of those have to be fit perfectly and that can't really be done on a national level, at least not from my experience. Things like that are where I'm figuring the impact in local business. All of this hinges on where either are being built because some products need to be brought in, some are gotten locally even though they can be shipped nationally.
I really tried to figure my numbers on what I considered to be normal for both and only involve the construction and upkeep of the home and who would likely be doing it.
Actually, it really depends on how "big" the mansion is and if you are referring to local jobs or national/state jobs. Also, it depends on if you are looking at short term or long term jobs. But for the sake of argument, I will figure 99 100k starter homes and a 10 million dollar mansion.
Typically, most starter homes use big manufacturer products for their homes. Homes are turn and burn usually built in 45 days or less. This means a lot of ready to use product that has been produced in bulk. Builders/contractors make their money and move on. a 100 home project would take about 12-18 months to build out, depending on home sales during the build out phase.
Now, if you look at the construction of a big mansion, a lot more local companies are used. Custom built cabinets, stonework, wood, doors, metal etc are bought from local vendors/manufacturers putting more money back into the local economy instead of sending it out to a national/state company. Specialized craftsmen will also be required instead of generalized installers. Also, the materials used usually are manufactured to order, and that's normally done locally. Vinyl, carpet, formica and basic cabinets are manufactured in a plant nationally, while granite, hardwood cabinets, stained woodwork, marble, hardwood floors (cut nationally, but sanded/stained locally) all are usually custom order and therefor are custom produced. Also, a mansion will probably spend 125-150k on landscaping vs $500 - 1000 on a starter. The time required to build a mansion would be about the same or longer.
The real difference comes in with maintenance. The owner of a mansion is going to have staff (I would imagine 2 - 3 full time), so those are permanent jobs created from the construction of that home. Also, they are going to be paying for services (plumber, electrician, gardener, pool guy etc) instead of trying to fix it themselves like starter homes. Starter homes are going to have more problems, because they are made with cheaper products. More money will be pumped into stores like Home Depot or Lowe's that send profits off to a national office, instead of staying in the area. Contractors buy from locally owned distributors because they usually get a discount because they are contractors.
At that point, it's really hard to determine which provides more jobs, simply because it's to difficult to track the pennies. A big mansion will provide more impact locally than 99 starter homes.
Of course, it all depends on where this mansion is being built as well. In LA it's not going to have nearly local impact that it would in a smaller town of say 100k people.
So all of that to say, a mansion imo will provide more jobs, long and short term and pump more dollars back to locally owned business.