Both.

Earth’s crust is 8% aluminum, so while there are certainly easy and hard sources to tap it is also the most common metallic element available.

We also recycle it in large volumes because it’s easy to rework and cheaper to rework than extract new.

There is of course no clear line between atmosphere and no atmosphere, it's continuous reduction in pressure. The usual demarcation used is Karman line. As altitude increases and pressure decreases, the velocity required for fixed wing craft to stay aloft increases, Karman line is altitude where speed of of an hypothetical ideal aircraft would have to match orbital speed to stay flying, which of course would make it a spacecraft instead. So that is considered the end of aeronautics and start of astronautics.

And yeah it fluctuates, mostly depending on solar wind conditions. So actual used altitudes are convenient round numbers, 50 miles by US and 100km by rest of the world.

Maybe it matters more on location, or state, but I think your number is too low.

I've looked at tons of homes in my region. Here's one. Most of them say the same thing this one does: Buyer's agent commission = 2.5%. If you hover over that, it says:

> The seller is offering 2.5% of this home’s final sale price to the brokerage or agent representing the buyer.

And you can bet that at least another 2.5% is going to the seller's agent too.

So for this case, it's a total of 5%, not 6%, but I've definitely seen it up to 6% before.

More information.

> Typically, real estate commission is 5%–6% of the home’s sale price. In most areas, the buyer’s agent receives 2.5%–3% in commission and the seller’s agent receives 2.5%-3% in commission. This can vary by agent and location.

Now, I admit, I've seen people make deals with agents. An agent friend might take 1.5% as a favor. Or you might talk an agent into taking less if you don't rely on them to do as much as an agent typically does. Or you can do away with those commissions altogether in a private party sale.

But what I'm showing you above, is the norm in the situations I've been. And this is the third home I've bought in my lifetime.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

ELI5 is not meant for any question that you may have, including personal questions, medical questions, legal questions, etc. It is meant for simplifying complex concepts.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Do you have a source for 1.5% each? I've never heard that before and I've done dozens of real estate transactions in multiple states.

Here's a source showing 6%:

https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/realtor-fees/

In most states, 6% is common (3% each)

In California, 5% is common (2.5% each).

I agree, but I think it depends on the market.

In a hot seller's market, then indeed it can be super easy to sell a home, so real estate agents will make more money for less work doing that. In that same market, working with buyers won't be as easy at all because a typical buyer might have to make offers a dozen or more times before successfully closing, and some may never end up being able to buy.

But, the opposite can exist. In a slow market with a lot of inventory and low demand, it can be much easier to be a buyer's agent since the buyers have lots to choose from and all of the leverage.

Because to be a listing agent they don't have to do shit except put it up on MLS and take phone calls.

A buyer's agent has to find houses, look for neighborhood comps, schedule showing times (often evenings and weekends), write offers, negotiate, etc.

All the work is on the buyer's end, but it pays the same commission as the seller's.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Loaded questions, or ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. A loaded question is one that posits a specific view of reality and asks for explanations that confirm it. These usually include the poster's own opinion and bias, but do not always - there is overlap between this and parts of Rule 2. Note that this specifically includes false premises.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Perhaps the realtors you've dealt with have had bad experiences as buyer's agents. Most realtors of which I am aware (admittedly not a huge number) work as both buyer and seller agents.

If you are a serious buyer, I'd expect that a realtor would rather represent you than a seller (although as I said previously they'll likely still handle both sides). The buyer's and seller's agents split the commission, but the seller's agent might have additional costs in marketing the property. The buyer's agent is just out a bit of time and gas on their vehicle.

You may have a bad agent...they should want to do both.

Selling is somewhat easier (less time commitment from the agent) but if someone is selling then someone must be buying so it's in the agent's best interest to facilitate both...they make money on both sides of the transaction.

They may want to sell *more* than buy but they should never want to *only* sell.

I think it varies by state but I know where I live realtors don’t make money when they help you buy a house. Only when they sell a house.

I don’t really understand how it works because my realtor worked really hard to help me find a (cheap in comparison) house to buy but I was renting before. He did a lot of work ton of get paid. But I guess it works out.

> They don't make a commission on your buying.

No, they almost always make a commission.

Technically the commission comes from the seller. In the sales contract it typically says what the distribution is, like 3% to the buyer's agent and 3% to the seller's. In California, 2.5% / 2.5% is common.

Occasionally a seller will try to sell "by owner" and not offer a commission to the buyer's agent, but that's still pretty rare.

If they're *each* getting 3% (in the US) you're getting screwed. It should be 3% *total*, split 1.5% to each agent.

That's not true. The seller pays the commission and it's split evenly between the buying and selling agent, unless there's some weird contract to the contrary. At least in the US.

Because of the commission split.

X% of the value of the home price goes to realtors as a commission. The realtors split up this commission amongst themselves as sellers and buyers agents.

The seller's agent usually spends less effort, and claims a bigger portion of the commission, hence it's preferable to be a seller's agent than a buyers.

You are correct. The buyer and seller agents split the commission.

> They don't make a commission on your buying.

That's not true in my experience. Usually the seller's agent and the buyer's agent each get 3% of the sale price.

I'm renting right now, but shopping for a house to buy. So I'm not selling anything. I'm only buying.

I have an agent helping me look for a house to buy. He's shown me tons of houses that he's not selling himself.

If my agent didn't make a commission when I buy a house ... why the heck is he helping me at all??

They don't make a commission on your buying.

But they definitely make a commision and charge for services provided when selling.

Unless your a serial house buyer. You don't give them any money or repeat business. The seller pays the fees. So they suck ip to seller as a tactic to push the price higher, increasing the commission.

They also meet 200 tire kickers a day, and in this market, they have no shortage of people wanting a house.

In my experience they try and do both at the same time. Many agents will push their own listings because they could make money on both ends. At the end of the day, no one gets into real estate because it’s their life purpose, they get into real estate because there is lots of money to be made and some will do just about anything to maximize their profit.

Do you mean “at-will” employment, not “at-risk”?

• It's in their contract.
• You'll only see this for people who are way high up.
• The only way to get them to accept the job is to agree to pay a certain amount if they are ever fired for certain reasons.

There's a few possible reasons

1. If the person is laid off (the position is made redundant) there may be Government mandated compensation for that person. For example 1 week of pay for every year worked. This is to protect workers from being laid off on a whim, the company can't just let their workers all go without any penalty.

2. Some companies have contracts that offer severance pay to long time workers if they are terminated. It's a bonus of working there, and is meant to thank them for long time service and help them find a new job. Often this is a Union benefit.

3. Often unused vacation, pensions, and other bonuses accumulate and have to be paid out if the person is terminated.

4. High level Executives are notorious for including clauses in their contracts that they must receive payment based on the remaining time on their contracts if they are fired. These are referred to as Golden Parachutes and are the result of executives getting to effectively write their own contracts. So even if a manager fails at their job catastrophically, a company may be forced to 'buy them out' of their contract to be rid of them.

Are you talking about severance? There is usually a contract that goes along with it, often times preventing the employee from suing, working for a competitor, or talking publicly about the layoffs. Or if a company is doing poorly, the severance is incentive for the remaining employees to not look for new work as the boat sinks. If your coworker received 20k for getting fired, you're going to stick it out in hopes they lay you off next.

Define "fired"?

Most states in the US are "at-risk" employment, meaning they don't need to provide any reason at all to terminate you. If they are terminating you and you specifically for whatever reason, that's "firing" (as opposed to lay offs).

You can be fired "for cause" which means you done fucked up and there is no compensation typically given for that. It's more of a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" type scenario.

You can also be fired "without cause", that doesn't mean you necessarily did anything wrong, they just don't want you to work for them anymore. There is typically some sort of severance given for many reasons, depending on how cynical you are.

1. Companies may be heartless but managers not necessarily so. Getting fired sucks and their at least making an effort to keep you on feet and minimize the impact to your life.

2. Sometimes there are actual laws stipulating severance for termination with-out cause. Similarly there are laws stipulating unemployment benefits for termination as well, in many areas you cannot file for unemployement benefits if you've been terminated with cause.

3. Companies understand that people who get fired are likely to sue their employers. Often these payout packages come with legal agreements that the person cannot sue their employer if they accept the money. Do the math and it's cheaper to pay many people a little bit of money to not sue, than it is to pay for all the lawsuits.

[deleted]