Depends. Better as a word is a little too wide to interpret accurately without some additional information to go on. For example, if you look at my post history, you will know that I am not too keen on social media in general. From that perspective, it could be interpreted as a win. And yet, I think most of us here recognize the development as a whole is not 'good' ( since we are going with generic, not-easily-defined verbiage ).
The problem with that rhetoric is that at some point you need social media to prove legitimacy of your identity.
It already happens at border controls and TSA checks.
Guess when that "you can just not use TikTok" argument will expand to "you can just not use the internet" and effectively be punished monetarily or socially for not wanting to use it.
> Maybe it's time for a third large phone OS, whether it comes from China getting fed up with the US and Google's shenanigans (Huawei has HarmonyOS but it's not open) or some "GNU/Linux" touch version that has a serious ecosystem. Especially when more and more apps and services are "mobile-first" or "mobile-only" like banking.
This makes me laugh. Not at you, but at the cycle. This was the convo years ago when this was possible, but getting consumers to trust a 3rd party like PalmOS (which was actually pretty darn good compared to android) is practically not possible.
Reminds me of the early days of cloud computing. It was very pricey, but once the tools caught up in 5 or so years, it went from "omg cloud is so expensive" to "omg cloud is only expensive when its worth building your own data center"
Reminds me of the argument of "cars used to be more sturdy than today, where any hit is a total"
Um... Looking at videos of crashing old cars into new cars, the old cars DO NOT hold up to new cars in terms of breaking. The only difference is in old cars the engine would stay intact and the occupants not, while in the new cars its the opposite.
I had a kid at 22, I am now 40 with a kid going to college. I can echo this exact sentiment.
However at 22 I wasn't the experienced person I am today. Nor was I stable, nor could I jump on opportunities like my peers could.
If having a child in your early 20s would mean not losing opportunities in progressing in a career, at least with enough free childcare and food to feed the children, people could be more inclined to have children while they get their life together. Our culture of moving away from home is also a big problem -- having 2 sets of grandparents helping raise a child REALLY helped me at my youth not miss out on youth and still raise my child.
kids between 25-32 is something our society should aim to be as practical and pleasant as possible.
> #2 is childcare. Cheap, plentiful, good quality.
This costs infinite money.
It's impossible to scale, because nobody wants an environment where their child is not getting attention from compassionate, engaged adults throughout the day. To get the same level of care as a stay at home parent, you need as many care workers as there are families with young children. And if you pay those workers comparably to the average wage, you need to tax the entire wages of one parent in each family to cover the care costs.
It's probably much cheaper to write checks to families encouraging them to have one parent care for their own children full time.
But I'm not going to tell someone they can't work.
My wife was stay-at-home, until she couldn't take it any more, and then returned to work. Even though it cost us more overall (childcare, second car, etc).
I think willing to take a cut in one's standard of living so that the mother stays at home and raises the children would revitalize society beyond any of the above-mentioned options.
Or... Raise wages while reducing housing and insurance costs so that a single wage earner home can support their family. What my grandpa and grandma used to call "the middle class".
I agree with you. I don't have all the answers, but I agree with you. Things aren't the same. My political views have evolved so much over the span of 20-years. I don't know what the answer is, but at a spiritual level, you are completely right.
Right up top. The service for alerts no longer works 24/7 so this happened when they were down for their daily window. Therefore the cuts are directly responsible.
I think this change is pro National Association of Realtors (NAR). My understanding is you need a REALTOR®'s license to list on the MLS or go through someone who has a license.
The NAR has been historically pretty anticompetitive (see the recent Burnett v. National Association of Realtors finding) so my sense is this is likely anti consumer.
Why would it be anti-consumer though? An broken analog clock is right twice a day, and not letting there be a private market for the rich and well-connected is good for the individual realtor or firm that isn't well connected and is also good for consumers who aren't rich and well-connected. It means that property being sold get listed to a database that all consumers get access to, instead of conglomerates or large companies like Compass dominating the market with their private databases. it's like if there was a members only section of a store that sells specific things, and you have to know the right somebody to gain access to it. Regardless of the prices, the people running that corner of the store have advantages over the others, if they can generate demand for products only they can stock.
It could be anti-consumer because Zillow isn't a market for just the rich and well-connected. If I own a modest home, I don't necessarily need a realtor to help me sell it. I might like to list it on Zillow myself and sell it without realtors taking 3-6% of the sale price. Now that isn't an option - I'm forced to go through a realtor and pay them 3-6% because only they can list on MLS.
Yeah I'm also trying to figure this out. I'm not seeing a clear pro or anti move here, and I'm also trying to figure out what the point of only listing a house via email or such ... not sure what is playing out here.
Only listing a house to buyers that can actually afford it and not having to waste time dealing people who need to get a mortgage with the bank who ultimately rejects the buyer. These aren't low end, low demand properties we're talking about. It makes it a "who you know" market, especially one where you don't want eg tabloids theorizing why you're selling the house. Eg if Beyonce was selling one of her mansions. The pool of qualified buyers for one of those it's a relatively short list, and the list of people she'd actually want to sell to is shorter still. in that kind of market, you don't need or want to publicly put it up for sale.
Literally being in the tabloids is a minor concern, yes, but hopefully you are able to generalize beyond that.
They aren't "silly" requests, and the realtor has a legal obligation to present offers to clients, so I'm not sure how you want your hypothetical screening to work.
Indeed, I recently was asked to sign an NDA to view an off market home; the seller was (apparently) a local business owner and didn’t want folks thinking the business might close — in many industries confidence in long term staying power is critical.
Pro consumer, delaying public listings leaves the door open for housing discrimination for one. Selling agents can use the delayed listing process to only show the home to pre-screened buyers of their choosing for a variety of reasons, some legitimate; many not. That can very quickly turn into a Fair Housing violation and swept under the rug because buyers just aren’t aware it’s happening.
Anti-consumer, marketing homes to actual people instead of faceless corporations and investment arms (which have destroyed family housing) helps keep communities strong.
Huh? Sellers can always sell to individuals without ever publically listing, and Sellers always have the option of (non-obviously) discriminating this way.
Hell, sellers can just tell people at their church group, madrasa, whatever that they’re thinking if selling.
It’s common for less economically minded sellers to pick a lower offer from someone they like, or have some personal connection with their story on, etc.
Even if listed publicly, they can pick and choose whatever buyer they want, as long as they don’t explicitly say they used a protected class as the justification for excluding someone.
Doing so would be a dumb unforced error (no one has to tell a buyer why they rejected their offer!), but I’m sure idiots do it all the time.
We are truly looking at 1984 as a blueprint not a warning.