You're suggesting the USPS doesn't operate like a well-oiled machine, because of government involvement?

Who would believe that? Government is the solution, not the problem ... everyone knows that!

Right. Nobody would have ever built the computer you're typing on without a professional liar collecting a percentage of the price. And nobody would have produced the egg you ate this morning without a highly trained salesman to tell you that you'll die if you don't eat something.

The value that salesmen add is just the sheen of BS covering the actual value of any product. I spent years in college and apprenticeship before I wrote the GIS system my company sold to the Swiss post office for millions. I got a $200 "bonus" and a pat on the back for my efforts. The salesman who sold it got 5% of the sale. He had a 2-year degree from the local junior college and his previous job was selling used cars. But he was a nice guy with a gift for gab. What a rare talent!

Meanwhile Taylor Swift makes about 3% of anything she produces, and that's astronomical among recording artists. The salesmen get the rest. And everyone thinks that's normal.

I'm not saying that the world doesn't need salesmen. I'm saying that the reason salesmen get such obscene compensation for what they consider work has nothing to do with value. They get it because so many people are dumb enough to fall for a good grift. In my world, it was usually because the CEO came out of the Sales department and talked himself into the job, after the engineer who started the company cashed out. Is "Windows 11" a greater value than "Window 7", which does the exact same thing BETTER, on 1/3rd the hardware requirement? Is it a coincidence that Win 7 was the last OS produced when Gates was still running things?

I'm sorry if I've offended the salesmen reading this. I don't fault salesmen for taking the money. I fault people for letting them rig the system with stupid laws that make it possible. And I really don't like it when a salesman tries to pretend that selling a computer system has more "value" than building one.

It's obvious you're unhappy the you chose the wrong side of the pay program. You got paid to write software and your pay didn't depend on the company selling it and making a lot of money. If they had to throw it away because no one wanted to buy it ... you still got your pay.

The Sales person, like entrepreneurs, take the gamble that they can actually perform and produce at their job and they're willing to not get paid, if they don't.

No risk, no gain.

I'm not unhappy that I chose to contribute to society rather than merely profit from it, but to say I didn't risk anything for the privilege says more about you than me. The mobster who collects "protection" money from all the legitimate businesses on his block probably feels pretty smug about his choices, too. I'll even agree with you that a guy who takes a percentage instead of a salary, ought to get enough to make it worth his while. But 5% of a house or software system (or 97% of a song!) is absurd. You only get that deal when the game is just as rigged as that protection racket.

Life sure is unfair, huh?

I'm not sure writing software is a huge contribution to society, but if that's what you have to work with, go for it.


I'm not sure Taylor Swift is a great example of someone being under-paid. According to MarketWatch, she earned upwards of $345,000,000 last year. Not bad work if you can get it. To say nothing of her contributions to society.

marketwatch.com

It's safe to say that some people produce a product or service that makes the world a better place. Others profit off of the former in various ways, some add value others not so much. In some cases, whatever the method, the profits far out weigh the added benefit.

The world isn't a fair place and leaches got to eat too.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm? But I didn't see a lol after so maybe your serious.

As a buyer, I will deal directly with the seller's agent --- the seller's agent will need to take 3% or less.

Agree
 

Totally agree. Why even have a buyer’s agent unless the purchaser desires a remote purchase? This 3% or 6% on a million dollar home is ludicrous. The title company does more work than real estate agents. It’s time to eliminate the middle man with his or her hands out.

As a buyer, I wouldn't give them a cent.
They are acting for the seller.
Their job is to pass on your offer to the seller, and if acceptable, sort the paper work.
Your costs should be your own survey, and someone to sort your legal requirements, and make sure the agreement is what you want. Not what seller wants.
All this double-dipping by agents is why people get screwed, fees are crazy, and legislation is passed to protect the Estate Agents monopoly.
Agents getting 5%+ is ridiculous.

Quick answer: Seller is paying listing brokerage x%. Regardless of whether the buyer was procured by listing brokerage or another brokerage they are still paying that x%. Seller has the choice of whether or not they agree to let listing broker split that x% or not. It is in their best interest to do so in my opinion. If they are not willing to, then their house is just going to sell for less because whatever the buyer offers is going to take into consideration what they may have to pay the agent that they are working with. Therefore the split % is still coming from the seller

Or
 

Or just put it on the MLS for 100 bucks and let the title company do everything else for 1,500 dollars.

Perfect solution.

Sell a $500,000 home and spend $100 to do it.

Ever heard the phrase, "you get what you pay for" ?

[QUOTE=NorineBerlinski;2356897]
2. It was always unfair that the seller had to pay the buyers broker 3% and that is why the law has changed. There is actually a website you can complete some forms online and get that 3% back, or some of it through this class action lawsuit. I have completed this form to see if I qualify to get some of the commission I have paid to buyers agents. just google real estate class action lawsuit and it should pop up.always been this way!

I googled this and read that this applies to sales as far back as ten years ago, in Florida at least. If this is true it wouldn't work for us because the houses we sold were prior to 2014.