I believe that many jobs in the would could cease to exist, and the world would still function the same, if not better.
An example that comes to mind are the "rent brokers" in my city - all they do is post rent ads to a local ebay-like website, answer the phones and write contracts (of questionable legal authority). Other than that, they are completely useless - they provide no useful information, and often lie just to get you to sign. And they take the first rent as payment.
I still have no idea why so many people choose to work with them.
> I still have no idea why so many people choose to work with them.
A good one is worth every penny of that month of rent.
Having to advertise, and then deal with the current tenant+prospective tenant tours and scheduling is very much worth it just on it's own. Add in screening/background checks/credit checks and such and it's substantial. A good listing agent will also be up to speed on local laws and assist on that front as well letting you know of any recent changes.
For me, it saves a bunch of time, and doesn't disrupt my dayjob.
I still do most of my own maintenance and such, but the marketing and finding new tenants really is the worst part (other than a horrible tenant!) of the landlording experience. If I ever retire I'd likely do it myself to save the cash.
As usual in such middle-men "industries" with no barrier of entry it attracts a lot of grifters and least-effort individuals so it's kind of a pain to find someone reliable.
Every reference to that headline should be followed up with a follow up comment from that thread:
> The coding used by this survey is a joke. If 40% of an occupation says they work outdoors that's below 50% so it's bucketed into the work from home category on that criterion. I think if even 20% of a job is saying they work outdoors that's pretty strong evidence you're missing some information about what the other 80% are doing in their job that prevents it from being a work from home job. The net result of their setup is obviously a vast overestimate so take the 37% number with a grain of salt.
That's great! And for people who read hacker news and can get a well paying job it's certainly an added benefit to an already great situation. Even for those in a not great situation working from home makes things easier. But the other 63% - a majority - are working in jobs that can't be remote. And if I had to guess, those 63% are the ones more likely to live in a mobile home or trailer park, which is what the linked article is about.
My assertion in my previous post and again now is for people who can't work remote and don't have a high paying job there's a limit to how far they can in practice move from their job.
You’re right. But when 37% of the workforce can move out of the city, that means there’s more housing available for the 63%. I think that’s what’s happening when people moving out of cities lately!
Feels like the "gotta keep the wheels of capitalism turning" has lead to this. Maybe this is yet another kooky theory like the others I see here, but: government "printing" money to keep the economy running means corporations have so much cash but nowhere to invest, as well as lack of regulations ("Hey Senator, how's your reelection campaign going? Oh you need a few million dollars to give to the media companies to buy campaign ads? Let's go for a game of golf and we can talk, my private plane will pick you up.") that they've gone predatory...
An entrepreneur will develop new mobile home parks and offer them for less. God bless capitalism