|
Discendo Vox posted:The pushback from the realtors is a pretty basic jeopardy play; "if you stop our price fixing cartel, the people benefitting from our price fixing cartel will lose their jobs" isn't actually a good defense- it's a way to divert attention. In the abstract it is an intellectually bankrupt defense, yes Politically though "a million and a half people will lose their jobs, and they likely have no other job skills they can transfer to because this is already a job of last resort" is non-trivial when elections are being decided by very small voter margins.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The pushback from the realtors is a pretty basic jeopardy play; "if you stop our price fixing cartel, the people benefitting from our price fixing cartel will lose their jobs" isn't actually a good defense- it's a way to divert attention. drat, son. You cold as ice. Look at this guy ready to throw 900,000 Grandmas on the street for a 6% discount. SMDH. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I would love to know the breakdown of how many real estate agents are part-time dabblers or people with a side gig versus people who do it full time. A remember a lot of my mom's friends getting into it thinking it'd be a quick way to make some extra bucks only for things to go south when they realized sales isn't an easy job. One time when I was looking at houses, and wandered into one after driving around a neighborhood. The neighboring district's absolutely goon of a state representative was hanging out in the kitchen showing the home. He's a second generation Florida state rep too, so not a part timer or someone still trying to make it. All I could think about was how easy it would be to slap him in the face for all the trans pain he's been a party too and flee the scene, but I didn't so
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:In the abstract it is an intellectually bankrupt defense, yes And it's those juicy suburban voters you're affecting too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
I love the framing of, 'no realtor is going to work for free, not knowing if they're going to get paid' as if the real estate company just has no way of paying people a wage like a normal job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I love the framing of, 'no realtor is going to work for free, not knowing if they're going to get paid' as if the real estate company just has no way of paying people a wage like a normal job. Right? Like, I thought a big hazard of the profession as it currently stands is that agents are often hustling around on their own dime until they make a sale happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
zoux posted:OK I think I've figured out the disconnect between macro indicators and consumer sentiment I posted it in BFC but in 2021-2022 the median income didn’t see a income increase. Less than median increased, more than median decreased slightly. There was huge variation around the trend line. I pushed on getting a more recent breakdown but nobody has anything other than aggregate figures. Im going to dig that up, just a second.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Right? Like, I thought a big hazard of the profession as it currently stands is that agents are often hustling around on their own dime until they make a sale happen. That was why I never got into real estate. Sure, the ceiling is high, but there's no floor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Definitely one of those mixed response issues from me. I know a few realtors personally and would hate to see them suffer from this. However, unfair fees and the like aren't going to help the long-term health of the housing market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
zoux posted:OK I think I've figured out the disconnect between macro indicators and consumer sentiment I don’t think they are morons. I think they are adjusting the questions for what they think are the likelihood of them happening based on their lived experience. “Do you want prices to go down” seems reasonable because prices all shot up just a few years ago, they can go back down. Why not? And then saying “what if it causes a recession” causes them to think about how bad inflation/the economy is already hurting them and 37% will take their chances anyway. “Do you want your income to go up” is always a yes, but if you interpret the question as “do you think your boss will raise your income enough to compensate for inflation” the answer is absolutely not. A recession is bad, but you might make it through ok, your boss will give you a big raise some time after Joe Biden talks through his rear end Ace Ventura-style on live television.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:In the abstract it is an intellectually bankrupt defense, yes Only to the degree that "politically" means "credulously accepting impact numbers from the people who've been running a price-fixing cartel."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:https://rooseveltinstitute.org/2022/04/04/increasing-wages-for-low-income-workers-is-key-for-a-full-economic-recovery/ It’s not irrational for most folks at median or above to want deflation because they saw only prices increase, not their wages increases. Think about the repercussions of a recession too, those primarily hit the below median. Self interest for median and above is a recession and deflation. To a lot of folks a soft landing means my costs went up, my wages did not and everything stays that way. This is the problem I was trying to communicate in BFC. In aggregate everybody is better off skipping a recession with a soft landing. But specific demographics are not better off. It’s like the elephant graph caused by globalization. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Curve Think about the privileged classes (median and above) vs the not privileged classes (below median) and what the material conditions are going to lead each to conclude. Those conclusions can differ substantially from what is best in the aggregate. They also aren’t irrational conclusions. What is irrational is to not be doing the class analysis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Only to the degree that "politically" means "credulously accepting impact numbers from the people who've been running a price-fixing cartel." Why do you think those numbers are wrong? I mean, once the MLRS is public, there's relatively little need for a broker at all. 90% of the job could be replaced by zwillow, and would be, and the remaining 10% would probably be swallowed up by whatever law firms are handling the transactions. There's little to set realtors apart from travel agents with the mlrs gone. Just another zombie career abolished by the internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
"Ending our price fixing cartel could hurt first time home-buyers!" No it wouldn't. lol it looks like the number of realtors is extremely volatile  The notion that this is critical employment seems a bit silly. Realtors already have zero protection against the fluctuations in the market and are thrown out of work pretty much because of bad luck with zero protection. Marginal realtors are regularly purged in the hundreds of thousands in housing slumps. Meanwhile, literally everyone (including realtors!) is paying out the rear end for high prices and high fees in the housing market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Only to the degree that "politically" means "credulously accepting impact numbers from the people who've been running a price-fixing cartel." Hieronymous Alloy posted:Why do you think those numbers are wrong? Just for clarification: The "more than half of realtors will leave the industry/lose their jobs" is from a financial analyst and not the NAR. He also says that figure is his estimate if the DOJ wins their suit AND the class action suit that the DOJ is backing, but not filing, also succeeds. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Dec 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Why do you think those numbers are wrong? I think realtors could still demonstrate a lot of value (either by helping sellers market their properties or by helping buyers broaden or refine their searches or point out red flags). It'd be a lot of hard work, but I think being a good and successful realtor is probably a lot of that kind of hard "demonstration of extra value" work anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Just for clarification: That's also roughly in line with the collapse of travel agent jobs after the internet came along, which seems to me like the closest analogue.. That would mean only between 750,000 and a million jobs lost though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:"Ending our price fixing cartel could hurt first time home-buyers!" Seems pretty similar to the minimum wage arguments. "If we pay our employees a living wage, we'll have to jack up our prices and install robots to automate their jobs!" "But you're already jacking up prices and installing robots without paying your people. And all of the math proves that paying people an honest wage would only increase burger prices by like 5 cents."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Santos expelled 311 to 114: Good. He's such a liar I'll bet amber wasn't even the natural color of his energy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Why do you think those numbers are wrong? When we were house shopping in 2020, our guy just gave us his MLS log-in and let us use that on our own to pick out stuff we were interested in. Is that unusual, does anyone know? But yeah if you have access to that program then the only thing you need a realtor for is opening a key box, it's got everything Also MLRS is rocket artillery, I hope that isn't made available to the public.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 21:36
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:Good. He's such a liar I'll bet amber wasn't even the natural color of his energy. Said a lot of lies and then some, some Ended up with him taken down, down
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
zoux posted:Also MLRS is rocket artillery, I hope that isn't made available to the public. Somewhere someone suddenly had the urge to shout about their Second Amendment rights being violated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:Good. He's such a liar I'll bet amber wasn't even the natural color of his energy. This response is certainly coming original
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The pushback from the realtors is a pretty basic jeopardy play; "if you stop our price fixing cartel, the people benefitting from our price fixing cartel will lose their jobs" isn't actually a good defense- it's a way to divert attention. After our last realtor did approximately an hour of work to earn her 4% commission and attempted to cost us $50k in exchange for a quicker sale I’m pretty well convinced the profession simply should no longer exist
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Just for clarification: I stand corrected on the source but color me skeptical until I see the report his firm is selling, which seems to be the only source literally anyone is using to predict outcomes here other than the parties themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
rscott posted:This response is certainly coming original This derail is a beautiful disaster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 22:21
|
|
|
Was just talking with a Redfin realtor yesterday, and they said they just mirror the MLS with a nicer interface.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
Something people aren't aware of is the government could just set price caps on things. Would be nice to have some rent control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 23:39
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Something people aren't aware of is the government could just set price caps on things. I think unfortunately doesn't this just lead to higher prices without the supply also increasing as well? I seem to remember this being brought up about IIRC Minnesota?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think unfortunately doesn't this just lead to higher prices without the supply also increasing as well? I seem to remember this being brought up about IIRC Minnesota? How do price caps lead to a rise in price? That seems more than a bit unintuitive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2023 23:55
|
|
|
It's also kind of unintuitive to imagine the government taking a side decisively against capital interests at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:How do price caps lead to a rise in price? That seems more than a bit unintuitive. From what I remember, price controls led to a constriction in supply, i.e less new housing, which relative to other cities without price controls which had a glut of new housing constructed resulted in higher prices relatively speaking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:How do price caps lead to a rise in price? That seems more than a bit unintuitive. Not on existing tenants, but every time someone moves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:How do price caps lead to a rise in price? That seems more than a bit unintuitive. Price caps don't directly lead to a rise in prices, but they do lead to a drop in supply or a black market. Based on what Nixon did in the 70's, price caps on consumables can generally stabilize prices short-term, but run into problems if they are implemented long term. Nixon also froze wages during that period to make sure inflation didn't rise. For things like rent control or non-consumable assets, it makes it much harder to move because it effectively increases the cost of moving somewhere else if you don't stay in one place to compound your rent controlled savings or you potentially lose real value on an asset when you exchange it under a cap. For housing specifically, the problem is that there aren't enough houses for all the people who want to live in a specific area. Even if you implemented price caps, then you would have to forcibly relocate people to accommodate everyone in a high demand area. Or you'd have to use non-price methods of exchange like being assigned a place to live through a centrally organized distribution process, mandatory roommates, or forcibly relocating people if supply doesn't also increase. There's plenty of houses in places like Youngstown, Ohio and plenty of room in the country, but people don't want to forcibly relocate to less dense part of the country or increase density in high-demand areas. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Dec 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
Control rent by forcing landlords to compete with free government provided housing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
Price caps lead to all sorts of petulant bullshit from the gears of capitalism which then blame what they did on capitalism but they’re also not perfect anyway. If more people want to live in an area than there are homes available then prices go up. If you set a price cap then the price can’t really go up anymore, but you also remove some incentive from people to build which means one of the roots of the problem remains. The better ways to attack that problem are on the “homes available side” by both building more and disincentivizing the ownership of multiple homes by The messy thing is that that can lead to the landlord trying to charge more to recoup the losses in taxes but if you’re building more then prices should drop as availability goes up. This is why NIMBYs don’t want medium or high density housing built around them (that and they don’t want the poors to live nearby. Or anywhere. But also they hate homeless people.) A ban on the ownership of more than two housing units (including the one you live in) sure would be an interesting solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:Control rent by forcing landlords to compete with free government provided housing. The Vienna model is the way. It's also a way to force transit oriented density in cities where private developers are only interested in sprawl. MixMasterMalaria posted:This derail is a beautiful disaster. It's certainly making me reconsider everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 00:36
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:A ban on the ownership of more than two housing units (including the one you live in) sure would be an interesting solution. You would absolutely have motherfuckers trying to loophole through that. "Well I own these two houses. My wife owns 2 different houses, as does my son. They both live with me, of course, but only my name is on the paperwork. I also bought two houses for my dog, who is the legal owner, but I handle the paperwork for him."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 00:36
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Good. Home buying in this country is absolutely a racket locked up by a cabal of literal idiots. Bodyholes posted:The Vienna model is the way. It's also a way to force transit oriented density in cities where private developers are only interested in sprawl. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Dec 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
the_steve posted:You would absolutely have motherfuckers trying to loophole through that. It’s probably unworkable for a million reasons but even having it split up like that would do wonders. The main thing would be you would no longer have corporate ownership of housing units. Imagine all the mega investment firms having to divest themselves of homes, condos, apartments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 00:40
|
|