[CoachKandSportsguy]

Come on people, lets play 3 dimensional checkers:

The ruling has nothing to do with realtors as you all are describing, the suit is the attempt of the digital community to break the MLS realtor commission agreements to allow digital platforms to compete on an equal footing with the MLS, including commissions, or to take over the advertisement / sales process. They are looking to disrupt the MLS and get the sales commission money as well as the advertising dollars.

Zillow / Redfin are mostl advertising platforms, and they want to become the MLS / realtor platform replacement. I worked with a computer programmer in the mid 90's trying to develop an internet zillow platform, just the same but he was way ahead of his time This digital attempt is no different than digital banks trying to break the traditional banks from sole ownership of the money. similar to bitcoin trying to break the central bank's monopoly on money. Turbotax did that with CPAS, now CPAs don't even want to do individual taxes, except some of the older folks. The younger CPAs want the corporate jobs. The first step of the digital community is break the commission richness down into chaos, and turn the realtor sales process into commodity status. . . from there they have a chance to disrupt the currently very rich person to person realtor process with their digital solutions.

Digital disruption is all about technology replacing the human processes, and grabbing their money as well. Its what i have done with programming as well to replace humans in the corporate world doing financial reporting. This NAR agreement is just another attempt to go after what the technologists think they can grab and control.

Wake up people, its about eliminating realtors completely and then paying technology software fees.

[Normal]

Efficiency reduces cost. The less cost of fixed percentages, the less cost for sales and the eventual reduction of pricing. It’s a good thing. No longer will a seller have to consider high increases to pay for a realtor cost.

When a home transaction went through a realtor, a seller may have wanted 400 k. Realtor involvement required a seller to ask 426 K. The house sold raised comp prices. It was a perpetual inflation machine.

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Come on people, lets play 3 dimensional checkers:

The ruling has nothing to do with realtors as you all are describing, the suit is the attempt of the digital community to break the MLS realtor commission agreements to allow digital platforms to compete on an equal footing with the MLS, including commissions, or to take over the advertisement / sales process. They are looking to disrupt the MLS and get the sales commission money as well as the advertising dollars.

Zillow / Redfin are mostl advertising platforms, and they want to become the MLS / realtor platform replacement. I worked with a computer programmer in the mid 90's trying to develop an internet zillow platform, just the same but he was way ahead of his time This digital attempt is no different than digital banks trying to break the traditional banks from sole ownership of the money. similar to bitcoin trying to break the central bank's monopoly on money. Turbotax did that with CPAS, now CPAs don't even want to do individual taxes, except some of the older folks. The younger CPAs want the corporate jobs. The first step of the digital community is break the commission richness down into chaos, and turn the realtor sales process into commodity status. . . from there they have a chance to disrupt the currently very rich person to person realtor process with their digital solutions.

Digital disruption is all about technology replacing the human processes, and grabbing their money as well. Its what i have done with programming as well to replace humans in the corporate world doing financial reporting. This NAR agreement is just another attempt to go after what the technologists think they can grab and control.

Wake up people, its about eliminating realtors completely and then paying technology software fees.

And that's a good thing. Like your Turbotax example competition is usually good for the consumer. I am no longer a hostage to available appointment times and saved hundreds of dollars to boot. This new real estate rule will ultimately be good for the consumer. How do I know? The responses here by agents defending what they do for their princely salaries. If they truly believe there will be no impact why would they keep justifying to us what they do - post after post? 3D checkers - king me!

[JGibson]

Learn to code.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by rustyp

[/COLOR]
And that's a good thing. Like your Turbotax example competition is usually good for the consumer. I am no longer a hostage to available appointment times and saved hundreds of dollars to boot. This new real estate rule will ultimately be good for the consumer. How do I know? The responses here by agents defending what they do for their princely salaries. If they truly believe there will be no impact why would they keep justifying to us what they do - post after post? 3D checkers - king me!

really, so as machines replace people, what ends up is the modern version of the medieval times. fewer jobs paying into social security, fewer paying into taxes to support the infrastructure. The US will just keep having to borrow debt to support the country.

Medieval times was land and labor producing crops and managing animals.
Modern times is technology and near zero labor. . .

The US government is spending a trillion more every three months. Because the US has outsourced production for cheaper goods in place of jobs.

Here is a WSJ article which is behind a paywall, but let me paste a short paraphrase, as I can't see it either.

wsj.com

"The message will also mark an evolution for Yellen—and the end of a bygone era in U.S. economic thinking about China. Like other economists of her generation, Yellen, 77 years old, said the surge in Chinese exports at the start of the 21st century had seemed like a positive development, providing low-cost goods to global consumers. But the inexpensive exports also helped hollow out the U.S. manufacturing base in what became known as the China shock, leaving Americans out of work and fueling a political backlash to globalization."

The article quotes Yellen as saying: “People like me grew up with the view: If people send you cheap goods, you should send a thank-you note. That’s what standard economics basically says,” she said. “I would never ever again say, ‘Send a thank-you note.’ ”


interpretation from Michael Pettis:

This does indeed mark an astonishing discovery for "standard economics". People are not just consumers. They are also producers, and the extent to which they can consume does not depend on how cheap consumer products are, but rather on how much they produce. In the end, you can only sustainably consume an amount equal to what you produce. Economists are learning that cheap goods delivered through massive trade deficits do not increase consumption. They mainly increase debt. which is where we are now. increasing at $1 trillion every three months, because we love cheap things enough to throw away the golden goose of production


Michael Pettis wrote this article 5 years ago and its proving out today that the debt won't stop because we no longer produce enough. Machines and robots replacing people will just make this worse
Why U.S. Debt Must Continue to Rise - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

retired finance guy