Continuing to examine and hold a lively discussion of the Northern Virginia Real Estate market.
Please post your local house search updates, MLS finds, on-topic ideas, and links here.
http://franklymls.com/AR7477952"MLS # AR7477952 has been blocked by request of TTR Sothebys International Realty"So what do they think they are achieving by this? Apart from annoying prospective buyers?Is it so it's not so easy to see any price drops or previous listings? It's not like that information isn't available elsewhere, all Franklymls does is present it concisely and with all the info in one place. If I was the seller I'd be pissed off that the realtor was putting any kind of stumbling block in front of buyers.
LJJ - saw that one today on redfin, where one can definitely get the info. Since redfin aggregates data by house address and not MLS number, you can see that it hasn't been listed since '96, so nothing to hide. No clue why only FranklyMLS is blocked.
That was my point Katie, you can find all the info with a couple of clicks of you mouse, so blocking it on Frankly just seems asinine and maybe a little spiteful.
LJJ-I agree that it really is bad business, but unfortunately they threatened to sue Frank, so I understand why he listened to their request. I guess they figure if you can only get information from them maybe you will use them as your buyers agent. Personally I would not use them to buy/sell because they clearly are not looking out for their customers best interest.
HBThat is idiotic, if they're going to list houses on the MLS at all then what difference does it make if it's on Frankly? What could be the basis of the suit?Obviously I don't blame Frank for not wanting to tangle with them. I agree I would think twice about dealing with them, since they clearly have strange priorities.
LJJ-My guess is they want other agents to be able to see the listing, but they don't want to let buyers see it. They want buyers to go to them rather than using a site like frankly or redfin to find houses they want to buy.I assume the suit probably was that frank didn't have the right to show the pictures, but I don't know.I fully agree with you that it is idiotic that they want to block potential buyers from seeing their houses.
I know we haven't talked about this in a long time, but I saw this chart and was surprised. A lot of people have said how over the last 10-20 years more women have needed to enter the work to sustain the same standard of living. It appears the % of women working has actually been pretty constant over this time frame. Instead it looks like women entered the work force between 1950-1980s, so they were probably born in the 1930s-1960s time frame. This is the baby boomers and before rather than generation X.I know this is totally off topic, but I thought some people might find this interesting.
Would you have to add in some type of delay for when women started entering the work force in large numbers to the point in time when women started to become high earners in large numbers? The time they spent career-building. I think lots of women worked in the 50's at menial jobs before and after child care duties. It wasn't until later that a much larger proportion of women started working in more career-oriented positions.I have no statistics, just speculating.
I think there might be a couple of factors contributing to the graph flat-line. On the lower end of the income scale, recent reports have come out saying that women who would like to work can't because of child care costs. When it costs around $18,000 per child per year (some estimates say) to put a child in daycare, if you have two kids you aren't going to be making enough in a low-end administrative assistant, retail, or other type of job to cover the costs of working.On the other hand if you are attempting to purchase a single family home in one of the more expensive DC suburbs and the man in the household isn't in one of the more lucrative careers, I can see where the "can't afford the cost of living" logic factors in. If it really takes $108,000 a year for a family of 4 to be financially secure in Fairfax, only some of those families are going to be able to do that in a traditional breadwinner + housewife set-up. If both spouses have the education and skills for careers that cover child care costs, it might economically make sense for both to work. When you look at counties where a 2 bedroom house might run over half a million dollars, not every wage earner is going to earn enough to support a family without help in even a traditional middle class standard of living.
Jeremy & Katie-I agree with both of your points, I was just trying to point out that a lot of people complain how terrible generation X has it and this at least says maybe its not as bad as many think.
HBThe difference in workforce participation probably reflects social factors you haven't considered.That women who have recently had children, say under 1 year old are most likely not in the work force, add in the number of women who have a sick spouse or child and i'm not surprised the participation numbers are off.My dream is a spouse who makes way more money then i do.
Pat-Sorry if I was confusing. I wasn't trying to say its odd that fewer women work then men. Instead I was trying to say that the workforce has had tons of women in it for decades. Its not just our generation that has needed lots of women to support a middle class lifestyle.
A couple of other points re: HB's chart that make it a bit unclear:1) the chart doesn't distinguish between full time and part time work, right? If so, it's possible that more women are working more hours than previously and so (along with shifts in the types of jobs held, which people already mentioned) there may be changes not reflected in this chart;2) the labor force participation rate includes people who are employed AND those looking for work, I believe.
Pat, the vast majority of women who have children under the age of 5 work outside the home. Many of them can't afford not to, and may have family members who watch the little ones, or use day care.http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/mchirc/chusa_05/popchar/0206wmcc.htmAlso, everyone - a huge proportion of the work force is not married (male and female), including some of the parents, and this proportion has increased a lot since the 60s. Most singles who aren't disabled have always worked. People overestimate the proportion of married couples.
Ace-Those are some good points.
My mother always worked as did my mother-in-law. Both were RN's. There weren't too many options back in the 50's (teacher, secretary, nurse, etc.). Those of us watching "Leave it to Beaver" were seeing what was not reality for many families even in the 50's and 60's.The 70's saw a sea change (with the Women's Rights Movement) that challenged and changed long held notions about a woman's role in the household.When I graduated in 1980, I didn't know anyone who wasn't planning on working full-time. The idea that today's generation is the first that HAS to have a dual income is ridiculous.Also, a large number women work because they want to.
VA-Investor, yes, but statistically, those who give that reason as their primary one for working are in the minority.
Ace,It's a little more nuanced than that. One might contend that they "have" to work to make ends meet, when, in reality, personal life choices dictate the income necessary to "live".I do agree that, comparatively, it's a minority of women who choose to work because they want to. It would interesting to see a survey.My point is that things have not changed in the past 30+ yrs. Talk of the boomer's "stealing" anyone's future or $$$ is absurd.
VA-I agree with one small caveat, which is the national debt. The boomer generation was in charge when our national debt/deficit got out of control. My guess is that by the time we actually start working to reduce it it will be Gen X & Y that have to pay for this spending. Although I do agree that the boomers aren't really stealing anyone's future.
VA_Investor,I've seen those surveys. "Needing" or "having" to work is not defined as wanting to get a 52 inch TV. You should be able to find them on the web easily.
Actually, HB, the budget was balanced during the Clinton years, which ended in 2000. So depending on how you are defining out-of-control deficits and who is in charge, you probably need more pointing fingers.I don't think it's ever helpful to engage in age-ism or blaming a generation for the behavior of certain individuals.
Ace-I fully agree that ageism is not very useful, I was just pointing out that most politicians are boomers. So gen X/Y could complain about this.I personally think its bad politicians rather than boomers that caused this, but I could understand why some Gen X/Y could complain.
Post a Comment
Subscribe in a reader