|
Much like the health insurance industry, it would be good to cut out parasitic rent seeking bullshit jobs that serve to do nothing except extract dollars from people who have no choice. And maybe if you excise all those jobs from the economy, it's a good time to start looking at a UBI, or a way to translate those jobs into areas which can actually provide some value to the country and economy. But lol, lmao
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The economic theory will be that the market will dictate the price and the sellers will want to undercut each other rather than lose the sale, so their incentive is there to accept less on the sale price if they’re still pocketing the same amount as before. Yeah seems like that would be more likely if there wasn't a massive shortage of needed homes. If supply was where it should be I could see it but as is in most markets sellers don't need to undercut each other in order to not lose a sale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
The realtors aren't selling houses, they're selling the service of selling houses. The relevant point for how much realtor fees will stay up is not how much competition there is in the housing market, but rather how much competition there is in the selling houses market. Presuming that realtor fees are high because of a price fixing cartel, what should happen is that realtors will begin undercutting one another until the industry sheds enough jobs that competition stabilizes. The point at and speed with that occurs may vary greatly depending on local conditions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
6% realtor fees holy loving lol. Yet another horrifying insight into the weird poo poo Americans tolerate. In my country 1% is standard and the general opinion is that's too much for their stupid bullshit parasitic jobs
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:6% realtor fees holy loving lol. Yet another horrifying insight into the weird poo poo Americans tolerate. *shrug* It is, but, like, what're you gonna do when everything everywhere at all times is that way? Only so many hours in a day for every individual to fight all of it. At some point you just kinda shrug and go along to get along. Don't get me wrong gently caress realtors, I hope it crushes them and takes that 6% down to a reasonable amount but, like, the health care industry is still there leeching away as just one big ticket example. Individuals can't do gently caress about poo poo to fix that, and our collective response as a country was the Affordable Care Act.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:40
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:6% realtor fees holy loving lol. Yet another horrifying insight into the weird poo poo Americans tolerate. I mean what were we supposed to do, break out the guillotine for realtors? This is an example of us voting in the right people to appoint the right people to get something fixed. Went on way too long, sure, but I’ll take the W even if it’s later than it should be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
The FCC has just implemented new cable and internet pricing regulations. Internet and TV providers must now provide the full cost to consumer for their internet packages that includes all taxes, fees, and other costs they will charge for the subscription. Advertising $39.99 and then tacking on $15 per month in additional fees and taxes is no longer allowed. Additionally, the new definition for "high-speed" internet is now 100 mbps download speed. The previous definition was 25 mbps. Companies can no longer advertise "high-speed" internet if their speeds are lower than 100 mbps. Additionally, ISPs are now ineligible for any government grants or programs for providing high-speed internet unless they provide a minimum of 100 mbps download speeds to all of their customers. https://twitter.com/FCC/status/1768332804775870975
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
It's been a long time coming. It's nuts that they were allowed to go so longb essentially straight-up lying about the cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
If Trump gets elected, will his FCC picks be able to undo this
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
I cancelled my cable TV a while ago, but the absolute worst new thing was the secret "local sports fees" they were tacking on in addition to service fees, "infrastructure upgrade" fees, and taxes. I think I agreed to a $69.99 internet and cable bill that ended up around $95 + the cable box rental fee that I can't even remember what they used to charge. It was around 33% higher than the advertised cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:04
|
|
|
DOJ please find a way to ban car dealerships next
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
Make internet a utility imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:If Trump gets elected, will his FCC picks be able to undo this Yes. The blessing and curse of the administrative state. I would have to assume that once this goes into effect they won't bother repealing it, but assuming anything about Trump has gotten me in trouble before, so who knows?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
The FCC raised the broadband definition to the previous 25mbps number during the Obama administration, so presumably it survived the first Trump term already and the new definition will survive a hypothetical second
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:DOJ please find a way to ban car dealerships next No plans for that, unfortunately. The FTC did do a similar pricing rule implementation for car dealerships last month called the CARS Rule. quote:What the CARS Rule Requires: It also included a bunch of extra protections for service members who are frequently scammed by car dealerships: quote:The CARS Rule prohibits dealers from lying to servicemembers and other consumers about important cost and financing information, and about whether the dealers are affiliated with the military or any other governmental organization. They also are prohibited from lying about whether a vehicle can be moved out of state (which affects servicemembers and their families, who must frequently move to new duty stations) and whether a vehicle can be repossessed (there are laws that protect many servicemembers from having their vehicle repossessed). CARS rule kicks in on July 30th, 2024. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/12/ftc-announces-cars-rule-fight-scams-vehicle-shopping
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:17
|
|
|
It's also kind of darkly hilarious that car dealerships lived up to their stereotype so much that the FTC had to go out of their way to specify that "selling service contracts for oil changes on an electric vehicle" is illegal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
Even if it wasn't their direct intention, wiping out a bunch of realtors actually strikes right into the heart of the American fascist movement. Maybe they can figure out something for car dealerships eventually because that would kick another leg out of their table.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:38
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I cancelled my cable TV a while ago, but the absolute worst new thing was the secret "local sports fees" they were tacking on in addition to service fees, "infrastructure upgrade" fees, and taxes. Oh you mean the broadcast surcharge and sports surcharge? The ones that applied to everyone and you couldn't opt out of? Trust me they are trying to find ways to push more. I used to work at a local cable company/ISP 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
Don't some realty companies like Redfin already cap commissions below market and pay an actual salary? I'm wondering if that's where the industry (and I use that term loosely) goes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
I didn't see this get discussed and it seems significant, Biden backed up Schumer's anti-Bibi rhetoric:quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden expressed support Friday for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer after the senator called for new elections in Israel, the latest sign that the U.S. relationship with its closest Middle East ally is careening toward fracture over the war in Gaza.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
Finally, middle east regime change we can all get behind
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
One thing I don't understand about the realtor thing is that weren't commissions already negotiable? When we sold our home a couple years ago, we negotiated with our agent for 5% to be split between buyer's and seller's agents. And we shopped that around and had offers from folks for as low as 3%. I'm glad this is the way things are going, it makes way more sense for realtors to be paid a salary or hourly rate like other professional class-type jobs. But it seems contrary to my experience to say it was 6% take it or leave it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:One thing I don't understand about the realtor thing is that weren't commissions already negotiable? When we sold our home a couple years ago, we negotiated with our agent for 5% to be split between buyer's and seller's agents. And we shopped that around and had offers from folks for as low as 3%. The article says that the National Association of Realtors required its members to make 6% the standard (so buying and selling realtors would agree to that beforehand), but allow it to be negotiated if clients insisted. About 85% of house sales involving NAR members had the 6% rate. The DOJ argued that this was effectively price fixing and incentivized realtors to make sales more expensive for their clients. The settlement says they have to pay $1.8 billion in damages and end the practice of requiring 6% as a starting point because most people didn't insist on negotiating it (and the NAR realtors were required to start at 6%), so the 6% was effectively the default and final price for almost everyone who used a NAR realtor. quote:NAR had required homesellers to pay a set 6% commission that is typically split evenly between the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent. Although the NAR said the commission was negotiable and helped make housing more affordable for buyers, critics have long argued that the fees were effectively set and made housing more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:02
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:DOJ please find a way to ban car dealerships next from what i recall hearing forever ago, used car dealerships are the backbone of trump's political and monetary support, so yeah wouldn't be surprised if they did look into them
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:07
|
|
Craig K posted:from what i recall hearing forever ago, used car dealerships are the backbone of trump's political and monetary support, so yeah wouldn't be surprised if they did look into them There's another article on the subject I can't find at the moment, but this one was informative iirc https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
I see, that makes sense. I found the process of negotiating to be really interesting. By doing so, we got actual services from our agents (staging the house, etc.) In our market, there was fierce competition to represent sellers (during the pandemic) so I feel like we got a lot for our 5%. There was also a sliding scale where they would take a lower % (but keep the buyers side at 2.5%) if the house didn't sell for a certain amount.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:10
|
|
|
Unfortunately the vanguard of the fight against car dealerships right now is Tesla
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:14
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:DOJ please find a way to ban car dealerships next
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:41
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Do you want another Jan 6th? Because that's how you get another Jan 6th. if you ban car dealerships how will they afford to fly to washington? :v
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:45
|
|
|
A bunch of sore loser swimmers are suing the NCAA because transwomen competing allegedly violates Title IX cant wait for SCOTUS to declare transwomen are not women
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:52
|
|
|
So apparently the RNC is gonna be working with Scott Pressler I'm sure Mr. Pressler will be happy that he'll have access to young conservative men https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1768703711969161463 Trazz fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:59
|
|
|
Oh boy. Maybe Aaron Rodgers actually is RFK Jr's VP pick. Just randomly clarifying that you never said Sandy Hook never happened and were just questioning the official story. https://twitter.com/AaronRodgers12/status/1768318406560760224
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:A bunch of sore loser swimmers are suing the NCAA because transwomen competing allegedly violates Title IX Serious question, not trying to rile anybody up or diminish any accomplishments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:08
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I agree that transwomen are women, but don't they still have a clear biological advantage over non-trans women in sports? I believe you have stated one of the key elements of their argument. I think the answer is overall "no." More on the topic here: https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/transgenderwomenathletesandelitesport-ascientificreview-e-final.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I agree that transwomen are women, but don't they still have a clear biological advantage over non-trans women in sports? There are requirements for transwomen to compete in women’s college sports including HRT. Studies have generally shown that after sufficient HRT the original advantage men have over women is gone. Her times dropped significantly before and after. On the flip side, she was (prior to any HRT, prior to coming out as trans) a good but not great swimmer competing against men, and she won a national championship (but was not, like, record setting or dominant) competing against women. But then you’d expect her to get better even if she had not done HRT and kept competing against men, so maybe she’d have been a top swimmer as a senior anyway. So overall, studies have shown that post HRT no there isn’t an advantage but I think you can see why someone might look at this one case and wonder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:25
|
|
|
My "I never denied Sandy Hook tweet" is bringing up a lot of questions already answered by my tweet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I agree that transwomen are women, but don't they still have a clear biological advantage over non-trans women in sports? The tl;dr summary seems to be: - Not a lot of data, need more to be 100% sure. - Transwomen undergoing testosterone suppression or who had a female puberty/puberty blockers have no real major advantage over cis women 99% of the time. - The exception seems to be running and swimming at "the elite level" and there seems to be about a 4.8 second improvement. But, once again, going off of a very limited data set. - There's no real basis for separating out trans athletes at the "non-elite" level if their hormone levels meet guidelines. - There might be some small argument about it at the elite level where those few extra seconds can make a difference, but data is limited. And all of those tl;dr points come from a limited set of data. quote:Biological data in this area are severely limited. In fact, an illuminating place to start is to note that, “to date, there have been no prospective studies investigating the changes in athletic performance in transgender athletes after hormonal transition” (Harper et al., 2021, p. 1), and many pertinent biological questions remained unexplored. The data that do exist often come with methodological concerns, and/or are limited in their ability to generalize to elite transgender athletes. So, maybe, at the very top level for running and swimming. Not really any impact for most other situations if they have been undergoing HRT for at least 5 months and/or had puberty blockers/female puberty. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:39
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:I didn't see this get discussed and it seems significant, Biden backed up Schumer's anti-Bibi rhetoric: I generally assumed at the time (and still do) that it was primarily Biden or his admin's idea and they just pushed Schumer to actually say it for the optics. The idea that he did it without Biden knowing seems pretty implausible
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:43
|
|
|
Here's a tweet chain from a major California realtor explaining her side of the story on the new DOJ settlement with the National Association of Realtors. Here primary argument is that this will drive a ton of realtors out of the profession, especially on the buying side where it takes a lot more work and you might never get a commission if they don't buy something, and force the remaining realtors to represent sellers because that is where the money will be now. This will cause buyers to be unrepresented from the shortage. She says this is going to cost her a significant amount of money overall and incentivize her to seek out sellers rather than buyers for clients. Still seems worth it for the industry, average person, and market overall in my opinion, but always good to read the argument from the perspective of someone who is losing out. It seems like the main "downside" is that it is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money and maybe their jobs, but their income and jobs only really existed because they were essentially mandatory middlemen with uneven knowledge. Sucks for those 1.6 million people (it is truly a fairly large industry), but worth it overall. I can sympathize with the complaint that you don't get and are essentially working for free until you make a sale and the buying side requires a lot more work without a guaranteed payout, though. Also including a tweet with an article that summarizes the background for how this decision ended up shaking up the realtor business after 100 years of doing things the same way. https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1768758572165558335 https://twitter.com/JulieChangRE/status/1768674283637862870 https://twitter.com/JulieChangRE/status/1768684091648688436 https://twitter.com/JulieChangRE/status/1768692003930616279 https://twitter.com/JulieChangRE/status/1768743488068489294 Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Literally "Not All Agents!", LMAO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 00:17
|
|
