Comments 1 - 40 of 46 Next » Last » Search these comments
The females will say hell no. You don't understand women.
Why will they say no?
The dating metaphor might be distracting, because personal relationships are not entirely about money, but selling a house is always expressly about money.
Sellers might list because it would provide a way of checking the level of interest. Even if they want to hire a realtor they might list first on PatNet to get an independent measure of interest, so they can say to the realtor they're already getting interest at price X online so the realtor would only get a commission at a price higher than X by a wide enough margin to cover the commission. If the realtor can't net higher offers after commission, the seller could sell on PatNet (unless the realtor locks the seller into an exclusive listing agreement).
The pitch to sellers might be, Why trust your most important financial decision, the sale of your biggest asset, to the honesty of a realtor?
When the agent wants blinds bids and play games, it is really the seller's
desire.
Blind bids? How do you know you won't get a girl who used to be a dude??
Sometimes that's difficult because she is behind a curtain talking to 50 other suitors.
Or maybe she just told you there are 50 other suitors, but won't give any names.
What if there was some kind of validation of the buyers? This would entail a bit more personal involvement than you have now. What if buyers had to submit an application. It included a credit check and some evidence of loan approval or financial ability to pay. I *think* that would be the only status that sellers would care about.
What about some kind of registration requirements for buyers. They aren't working with an agent. Some statements about the nature of the sale - short, regular, foreclosure; some information about the history of the house; a statement that they would be willing to work with lawyer X in the arrangement of the sale.
You could have different paths that people could endorse to reach the sale. Cash, Owner financed, lawyer facilitated. Not that you are personally doing any of this for them, but helping them find their dating match.
For example, I am a buyer looking for X, I have a credit score of 810, savings of 200K, available down payment of 80K, loan approval for 600K, I am looking for a short sale and would be OK with a lawyer facilitated sale from the bank.
Sellers could be more "desirable" by adding inspection documents. Pest reports, detailed information on major work done in the house, etc.
IN regard to comment by Curious2 about selling your house thru Patrick.net? "you might also say.. " Why trust your largest asset to Patrick.net who has no experience or a license to sell homes, does not know the regulations in each citiy around the area, does not know anything about RE contratcs, Inspections, Loans, time frames, due diligence, does not have the proper disclosures to protect the Seller or Buyer,Only has 1 small web site to promote your home,does not know how to qualify a possible buyer, but still wants to get paid for it?
Why trust your largest asset to Patrick.net who has no experience or a license to sell homes
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about targeted advertising, that's all. Do you "trust" your house to your local newspaper when you place an ad? I'm not even talking about being the exclusive advertiser either.
I smell a realtor, and the smell is not good.
I would trust my home to the avenue that brings me the seller the highest possible price in the current market. Best way to target and advertise properties has been MLS and other websites that download from MLS. It is an open forum here.
Whether we like it or not it is a proven succesful method.
Brokers tours , open houses are all effective ways to adveritse
and set a day for offers to be reviewed. The market is so HOT right now and tons of people want RE again. You should start recommending people Buy RE...The market has turned..bottomed out 18 months ago. Jump on the equity train.
Time to get off the train that is heading South.
Riding the equity train is quite a rush.
I remember in 2002 I owned 3 homes and was broke. Two were negative cash flow rental alligators.
Then in 2005 I was rich! I was like WTF JUST HAPPENED and sold.
now looking to repeat this in the casino called real estate.
Follow the same pattern. Get in..make money..Gt out! It is ok to leave $$ on the table for the next guy. As long as you make a profit you Never lose.
This site gets more misogynistic by the day. Dagnabit! Do you NOT know any women who are NOT financially dependent on a man? Maybe its the circles in which I travel, but other than my mother and one sister, I don't know any--honestly.
And. I certainly hope none of you have daughters.
Think of money as male and houses as female. Then the real estate market is just like the dating scene, where, basically, the money is looking for good-looking houses and the houses are looking for a lot of money.
Think of money as male and houses as female.
I like big lots and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a house comes by with an itty bitty carport
And a bay window in your face
You get sprung
Wanna pull up tough
Cuz you notice that garage was stuffed
Deep in the eat-in kitchen
I'm hooked and I can't stop sniffin'
Oh, baby I wanna get with ya
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But that patio you got
Make Me so horny
Ooh, façade of ionic columns
You say you wanna get in my benz
Well use me use me cuz you aint that average realtor
Ooh, façade of ionic columns
Ha. I hate those things. Why oh why does anyone actually put those in an otherwise perfectly acceptable dwelling?
This site gets more misogynistic by the day. Dagnabit! Do you NOT know any women who are NOT financially dependent on a man?
I don't know. I've often made the same comparison between being a software consultant in the IT industry. I can't help if if I'm the best milkshake in the town...
My code brings all the boys to the yard,
And there like,
Its better than yours,
Damn right its better than yours,
I can teach you,
But I have to charge
Ooh, façade of ionic columns
Ha. I hate those things. Why oh why does anyone actually put those in an otherwise perfectly acceptable dwelling?
I like ionic columns, but they are completely a façade. Fake "stone" around a steel beam.
Ted Mosby also likes ionic columns.
This site gets more misogynistic by the day. Dagnabit! Do you NOT know any women who are NOT financially dependent on a man? Maybe its the circles in which I travel, but other than my mother and one sister, I don't know any--honestly.
And. I certainly hope none of you have daughters.
Think of money as male and houses as female. Then the real estate market is just like the dating scene, where, basically, the money is looking for good-looking houses and the houses are looking for a lot of money.
Thats pretty much the dating scene - once out of college.
Ask your medical doctor sometime how easy it is/was for him to date hot chicks who look like models. Or a pro athete... on and on.
Thats pretty much the dating scene - once out of college.
Ask your medical
doctor sometime how easy it is/was for him to date hot chicks who look like
models. Or a pro athete... on and on.
I don't doubt that there are golddiggers out there, but there are also respectable women who take pride in independence and are not looking for a handout/status upgrade. I don't think it's accurate to paint all or vast majority of american women as golddiggers and I despise golddiggers. Also, I would add that in order to extinguish the golddigger tendencies all that men have to do is not give in to them. Once the behavior stops being reinforced it is only a matter of time until it is either eliminated or drastically reduced. Everyone needs to take responsibility here.
This site gets more misogynistic by the day. Dagnabit! Do you NOT know any women who are NOT financially dependent on a man?
When I was at U. Michigan, there was a professor, Richard Alexander, who studied the issue and found that in every culture on earth, the top factor in mate desirability was the same: men look for young and beautiful women, and women look for rich and powerful men.
He didn't say that was the only factor, just that the top factors were constant across all cultures. Here's a quote from one of his papers:
This study confirms the hypothesis that men more frequently use tactics of intrasexual mate competition involving resource possession and display. Similarly, the hypothesis of greater female alteration of appearance is supported. Both of these correspond to the sex differences in expressed mate selection criteria: men, more than women, prefer a mate who is physically attractive or good-looking; women, more than men, prefer a mate who is a good financial prospect or whose earning power appears to be high (Buss, 1987).
Of course he nearly lost his job. He defense was simply that it is true.
What's more important, truth or political correctness?
Remember, no one is saying that there are not financially independent woman, just that the dating scene is primarily about looks and money.
the top factor in mate desirability was the same: men look for young and
beautiful women, and women look for rich and powerful men.
In regards to a "median" american woman who is in the dating scene - lets assume she is out of college - who do you think she would prefer for a relationship - an asshole who makes $150Gs a year or a nice guy who makes $75Gs?
2x is not that big a difference in this game.
What about the asshole who makes $1.5 million per year compared to the nice guy who makes $75K?
I would imagine that a single asshole who makes $1.5 million will be on serious golddigger alert and would most likely solicit services of an "agency" to fulfill certain perks of relationships....
Obviously the smart women pick the 1.5m per year as this will maximize the inevitable alimony/child support payments.
The dumb women marry a funny guy with no job.
Hot chicks simply do not have to work in this (or any?) country.
Obviously the smart women pick the 1.5m per year as this will maximize the inevitable alimony/child support payments.
The dumb women marry a funny guy with no job.
Hot chicks simply do not have to work in this (or any?) country.
Which is why he will be on a golddigger alert from day 1 or worst case scenario have a pre-nup ready just in case...
Rich single assholes don't need the agency. For them, it's all free.
Well, free like a free lunch anyway.
Whats the point of working hard and making money if you cant get hot chicks.
Also, I would add that in order to extinguish the golddigger tendencies all that
men have to do is not give in to them.
No the laws have to change. If you are a woman married to a drunk, unemployed man who cheats on you and beats you and decide to divorce-you get nothing. If you are the same housewife who was married to Tiger Woods-you got nannies , vacations, servants, yachts, mansions, attended world level events and in divorce got 100 million. So this naturally encourages gold digging-would you not take your gold digging equipment and go dig for gold if you knew there was tons of gold in the hills nearby and it was legal to do so??
As long as you are married-enjoy-if you decide to move on, get transitory support for a very limited time and then make your own destiny. Many of us have faced career changes and have had to start from scratch. Child support should also be half of essentials and then a choice. Make those law changes and gold digging will go the way of the horse buggy.
the top factor in mate desirability was the same: men look for young and
beautiful women, and women look for rich and powerful men.
In regards to a "median" american woman who is in the dating scene - lets assume she is out of college - who do you think she would prefer for a relationship - an asshole who makes $150Gs a year or a nice guy who makes $75Gs?
The typical American woman just out of college would prefer an asshole who makes $0k over a nice guy who makes $150k.
the top factor in mate desirability was the same: men look for young and
beautiful women, and women look for rich and powerful men.
In regards to a "median" american woman who is in the dating scene - lets assume she is out of college - who do you think she would prefer for a relationship - an asshole who makes $150Gs a year or a nice guy who makes $75Gs?
The typical American woman just out of college would prefer an asshole who makes $0k over a nice guy who makes $150k.
thats only the first husband. #2 has to make bank.lol.
I'm not a lesbian. Working hard and making money should be a part of a normal person's DNA, not for the sake of getting a hot partner. Dang. I got that, but it wasn't purchased.
The huge downside of ending up with a great looking and talented partner though is that they are desirable to others and this causes grief. PockyClipsNow says
Whats the point of working hard and making money if you cant get hot chicks.
Working hard and making money should be a part of a normal person's DNA, not for the sake of getting a hot partner.
Obviously, you are not a man. Men work hard, scheme, wage wars against other countries, and do all sorts of thing just to get a hot partner. If men could get sex with lots of beautiful women without doing anything but playing XBox all day, they would be Millennials. And now you know why Millennial men are such slackers.
they would be Millennials. And now you know why Millennial men are such slackers.
I cannot argue with the truth.
I wanted to come back to this thread to see what Patrick was doing with his idea for home sales. Here you guys are talking about mate selection? Good grief.
The strawman argument:
This site gets more misogynistic by the day. Dagnabit! Do you NOT know any women who are NOT financially dependent on a man?
The response:
Remember, no one is saying that there are not financially independent wom(e)n, just that the dating scene is primarily about looks and money.
Well put. Can everyone see the original fallacy? Nobody said "ALL women are financially dependent on men". Most women are financially independent of men, but that does not stop them from WANTING a wealthy mate.
And by the way, financial independence is exactly why so many women spend an inordinate amount of time avoiding making any sort of realistic commitment, and instead engage in a lengthy and mostly unsuccessful quest to commit a wealthier mate than themselves. The whole scheme works great for population control, that's for sure.
Most women are financially independent of men, but that does not stop them from
WANTING a wealthy mate
Yup look at recent divorces. Russell Brand divorced Katie Perry and he was entitled by law to get 20 million dollars for their one year of marriage. He walked away and didn't take a penny from her.
Demi Moore divorces Ashton Kutcher and asks for alimony. Now she is a big movie star herself and already got a ton of alimony and money from her other ex Bruce Willis. When is it enough? Some say she may be worth 150 million and she still wants alimony!
Then there is Bethheny Frankel who is worth an estimated $55 million dollars. She files for divorce and wants alimony retroactive from the date of divorce, child support, a life insurance policy the husband has to take,as well as medical, dental, optical, therapeutic and orthodontic expenses for her and their child. Additionally, she wants to live in the house the couple has shared and this woman has about 55 million dollars.
That is the problem with modern western women. They have been conditioned by laws to take and take from men. Is it any wonder that alimony from men to women is 97% of alimony. Show me a single woman who has walked away from 20 million dollars and kept her dignity by making her own way? if a woman worth 150 million dollars is asking for alimony and a woman worth 55 million asks for dental care-that shows why our nation is screwed. The entitltment mentality with single moms getting welfare without having to do anything-clean toilets, walk dogs-do something and get your dignity back.
But our nation encourages this entitled mentality and until laws change and give women true equality by asking women to be responsible for their own lives without having men as a safety net -this nation is doomed. But a good thing, the usual misogyny card by the likes of rufita are not sticking any more, becuase more and more men are waking up to this horrid state of affairs-where Hulk Hogan who worked so hard to get there, had to give 70% of his fortune in a divorce and she ended up shacking up with a 21 yr old in his-well now her house. Laws are out of whack and there is no sense of shame. You enjoyed all the trappings of being Hulk Hogan's wife-vacations, servants, yachts, shopping all over the world, events-don't want it-move on and make your own destiny-it is unfair to get anything more than transitory support.
Yes there are plenty of financially independent women like Demi Moore and Bethenny Frankel and they still try and get something from the man. The laws need to change to reflect current reality.
That's just more of the same old "herding the sheep to slaughter" in the commission system. They're setting up buyers with realtors which is worth less than zero.
I'm trying to do something else: putting buyers in a position where many different sellers contact them personally. No realtors involved, hopefully, though filtering out seller's agents is not as important as filtering out buyer's agents.
Can anyone say Paul McCartney? Heather Mills! After his
1st wife died he married a very Wealthy woman and she only had 1 FREAKIN LEG!! After a few years she divorced him and kicked his ARSE with 2 legs! Like she did not have enough money already before she married him? WTF is wrong with those kind of people? I think he had to give her app $35 Million dollars plus lifelong alimony and all kinds of other BS. Of course why would he marry anyway in his situation? Not bad for dogging him in the press after they were married.
Comments 1 - 40 of 46 Next » Last » Search these comments
Think of money as male and houses as female. Then the real estate market is just like the dating scene, where, basically, the money is looking for good-looking houses and the houses are looking for a lot of money. Maybe there's more to it than that, but not much more in the real estate scene.
So let's say we make a web page that lists money on the left, and houses on the right. So there are two columns on the page. (I currently have the left column created here already: http://patrick.net/housing/buyers.php )
Each house on the right has the exact address and maybe a thumbnail photo.
Buyers (the money) could then click on houses to indicate interest, and the houses would gain status by getting more buyers to click on them.
And buyers themselves would gain status by clicking on lots of houses, to show that they are not stuck on one house, but have lots of options.
Then sellers would have a motive to tell people how many interested buyers they have on Patrick.net, to show that their house is popular.
Could something like this work?
Maybe buyers really don't have any motive to indicate interest in a house in public, because that just raises the price for themselves. Or maybe they'd do it just to get attention and more sellers contacting them. What's the online equivalent of a man driving an expensive sports car to impress women?
Anything would be better than what we have now though, where realtors just make up fake numbers of bids ("OMG, there 2,323 bids on this house! No, I can't give you any proof, but you better take out a giant mortgage right away...")
Suggestions?
#housing