Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=briansd1]Good thing birth control will be free.
[/quote]
I think everything should be free – why didn’t someone think of that before?
ParticipantThere are at least a few threads on this website that deal with the pros and cons of the current arrangement for real estate agent fees, and I’m sure you’l get a number of responses from the agents (I’m not an agent). Your question represents the standard argument over commission sales – sometimes the commission recipient receives somewhat of a windfall, sometimes they end up receiving nothing after putting in a bunch of work. The other option would be an hourly fee, which doesn’t give anyone an incentive to get the property moving. Commission arrangements encourage a listing agent to try to get the seller to a reasonable price, but sometimes it can be argued that commission based sales agents tend to push a somewhat low price point for a quick sale (there is an exhaustive analysis of this issue in the first Freakonomics book). From the sound of what I’ve heard here, in specialized circumstances you can sometimes negotiate a deal with an agent, although that’s not something that I’ve ever done. For what it’s worth, we are working with an agent in SD (we are in the process of buying) and I think it’ll turn out pretty fairly for him. The house that we’re buying is frought with complications, and he’s helped out all the way through. On the other hand, he helped my brother in law buy a condo, and I don’t think he had to show him more than two or three units. So I guess it all kind of works out in the end.
ParticipantThere are at least a few threads on this website that deal with the pros and cons of the current arrangement for real estate agent fees, and I’m sure you’l get a number of responses from the agents (I’m not an agent). Your question represents the standard argument over commission sales – sometimes the commission recipient receives somewhat of a windfall, sometimes they end up receiving nothing after putting in a bunch of work. The other option would be an hourly fee, which doesn’t give anyone an incentive to get the property moving. Commission arrangements encourage a listing agent to try to get the seller to a reasonable price, but sometimes it can be argued that commission based sales agents tend to push a somewhat low price point for a quick sale (there is an exhaustive analysis of this issue in the first Freakonomics book). From the sound of what I’ve heard here, in specialized circumstances you can sometimes negotiate a deal with an agent, although that’s not something that I’ve ever done. For what it’s worth, we are working with an agent in SD (we are in the process of buying) and I think it’ll turn out pretty fairly for him. The house that we’re buying is frought with complications, and he’s helped out all the way through. On the other hand, he helped my brother in law buy a condo, and I don’t think he had to show him more than two or three units. So I guess it all kind of works out in the end.
ParticipantThere are at least a few threads on this website that deal with the pros and cons of the current arrangement for real estate agent fees, and I’m sure you’l get a number of responses from the agents (I’m not an agent). Your question represents the standard argument over commission sales – sometimes the commission recipient receives somewhat of a windfall, sometimes they end up receiving nothing after putting in a bunch of work. The other option would be an hourly fee, which doesn’t give anyone an incentive to get the property moving. Commission arrangements encourage a listing agent to try to get the seller to a reasonable price, but sometimes it can be argued that commission based sales agents tend to push a somewhat low price point for a quick sale (there is an exhaustive analysis of this issue in the first Freakonomics book). From the sound of what I’ve heard here, in specialized circumstances you can sometimes negotiate a deal with an agent, although that’s not something that I’ve ever done. For what it’s worth, we are working with an agent in SD (we are in the process of buying) and I think it’ll turn out pretty fairly for him. The house that we’re buying is frought with complications, and he’s helped out all the way through. On the other hand, he helped my brother in law buy a condo, and I don’t think he had to show him more than two or three units. So I guess it all kind of works out in the end.
ParticipantThere are at least a few threads on this website that deal with the pros and cons of the current arrangement for real estate agent fees, and I’m sure you’l get a number of responses from the agents (I’m not an agent). Your question represents the standard argument over commission sales – sometimes the commission recipient receives somewhat of a windfall, sometimes they end up receiving nothing after putting in a bunch of work. The other option would be an hourly fee, which doesn’t give anyone an incentive to get the property moving. Commission arrangements encourage a listing agent to try to get the seller to a reasonable price, but sometimes it can be argued that commission based sales agents tend to push a somewhat low price point for a quick sale (there is an exhaustive analysis of this issue in the first Freakonomics book). From the sound of what I’ve heard here, in specialized circumstances you can sometimes negotiate a deal with an agent, although that’s not something that I’ve ever done. For what it’s worth, we are working with an agent in SD (we are in the process of buying) and I think it’ll turn out pretty fairly for him. The house that we’re buying is frought with complications, and he’s helped out all the way through. On the other hand, he helped my brother in law buy a condo, and I don’t think he had to show him more than two or three units. So I guess it all kind of works out in the end.
ParticipantThere are at least a few threads on this website that deal with the pros and cons of the current arrangement for real estate agent fees, and I’m sure you’l get a number of responses from the agents (I’m not an agent). Your question represents the standard argument over commission sales – sometimes the commission recipient receives somewhat of a windfall, sometimes they end up receiving nothing after putting in a bunch of work. The other option would be an hourly fee, which doesn’t give anyone an incentive to get the property moving. Commission arrangements encourage a listing agent to try to get the seller to a reasonable price, but sometimes it can be argued that commission based sales agents tend to push a somewhat low price point for a quick sale (there is an exhaustive analysis of this issue in the first Freakonomics book). From the sound of what I’ve heard here, in specialized circumstances you can sometimes negotiate a deal with an agent, although that’s not something that I’ve ever done. For what it’s worth, we are working with an agent in SD (we are in the process of buying) and I think it’ll turn out pretty fairly for him. The house that we’re buying is frought with complications, and he’s helped out all the way through. On the other hand, he helped my brother in law buy a condo, and I don’t think he had to show him more than two or three units. So I guess it all kind of works out in the end.
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance][quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! [/quote]
If you like Wikipedia, it has a good definition of “fertility rate”:
The total fertility rate (TFR, sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR)) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if (1) she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and (2) she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life.[1] It is obtained by summing the single-year age-specific rates at a given time.
~~~~~
It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance][quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! [/quote]
If you like Wikipedia, it has a good definition of “fertility rate”:
The total fertility rate (TFR, sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR)) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if (1) she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and (2) she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life.[1] It is obtained by summing the single-year age-specific rates at a given time.
~~~~~
It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance][quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! [/quote]
If you like Wikipedia, it has a good definition of “fertility rate”:
The total fertility rate (TFR, sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR)) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if (1) she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and (2) she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life.[1] It is obtained by summing the single-year age-specific rates at a given time.
~~~~~
It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance][quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! [/quote]
If you like Wikipedia, it has a good definition of “fertility rate”:
The total fertility rate (TFR, sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR)) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if (1) she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and (2) she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life.[1] It is obtained by summing the single-year age-specific rates at a given time.
~~~~~
It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance][quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! [/quote]
If you like Wikipedia, it has a good definition of “fertility rate”:
The total fertility rate (TFR, sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR)) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if (1) she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and (2) she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life.[1] It is obtained by summing the single-year age-specific rates at a given time.
~~~~~
It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.[/quote]From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.[/quote]From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.[/quote]From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.
-
AuthorPosts
