[Warning: This post contains cartoons. Lovers of discursive prose will do best to look away. You have been warned.]
I read this statement on a blog:
The purpose of these (licensing) laws is to artificially limit entry into the real estate business, with the objective being to artificially raise the prices paid by consumers. (emphasis added)
My prose response:
To effectively limit entry requires a difficult test and stricter licensing requirements, or admission quotas (there are no quotas–you pass, you’re in). The consensus is the test is too easy (like Geico, even a caveman can do it) and the barrier to entry very low, causing an OVERSUPPLY of (starving) agents and no corresponding reduction in costs to consumers, based on any study I’ve seen. Unless you can cite such a study, I believe, sir, your argument is doggie doo-doo.
Housing costs are primarily related to supply and demand of product, relative cost of renting, wages, unemployment rates, mortgage interest rates, confidence in the US economy, as well as consumer choice of competing business models in the marketplace.
Since the Stone Age, the purpose of licensing is to establish a basic level of competency to reduce the incidents of complaints and provide consumer confidence in the profession, provide documentation for statistical study, as well as to raise revenue for the state.
(BTW, I notice you have some alphabet soup designations—pray tell why? To justify your worth and right to your compensation, I suspect. Do you think that is artificial?
Now, the cartoon version (I’m not good at stick figures or video –yet).
Cartoon created via ChatFu.com (h/t: HTSAA)
Technorati Tags: real estate, marketing, real estate agents, licensing
