3 ms·

Precisely. Argument is that compensation should be based on time and not % of rent.

• sokoloff 12y ago
  That's philosophical. Is the agent being paid for effort (input) or results (output)? Either can work. Take the case of an agent that spends twice as much effort (and has the unit vacant for twice as long). Should that agent be paid more or less than an agent that fills the vacancy quickly and efficiently? As an engineer/executive, I'd much rather be paid for the results I generate, not the typing that I do.
  • rabbimarshak 12y ago
    My argument is that the results generated are not a product of the skill of the agent, but of the intrinsic demand for the product. Supply is very limited, and demand is extremely high. The unit will move itself, regardless of effort extended by the agent. As an engineer / executive - you would only rather be paid for results if you are a good worker and your output is positive. If your output is poor, or you produce shoddy work, you probably would prefer to be paid for time on the job.
    • sokoloff 12y ago
      If your hypothesis is completely true, why not become a broker and offer "1/2 fee" services? You'd still bank $500+/hr ($1MM a year full time equivalent); landlords would sign with you because they could charge an extra $100-150/mo rent while tenants would still save money overall versus those antiquated businesses charging full fees. You'd have an unstoppable competitive advantage...assuming of course that your hypothesis is perfectly true and that the broker is really banking almost $7K for 6 hours of work. My wager is that you'd find yourself falling well short of the million in annual income that your half-fee business plan would predict.