Podcasts about dave who

Star Trek: Discovery is back and the reviews are in. “It's so much better than Strange New Worlds.“ - Tod  “This could make me forget about sex and pizza.” - Dave “Who needs Star Wars, give me more Disco!” - Barry.  Wait … sorry. April Fool's was Last week. Star Trek: Discovery is back. And it's the final season … so that's something. Now that Dave and the rest of the world is caught up, the Joes wrap up 3 Body Problem, Netflix concise adaptation of Liu Cixin's novel Three Body Problem. The only question that remains is, will we have to wait 400 years to see what happens next? There's also the usual Random Topics and another round of What's in the Box. Thanks for listening!

TRITICUM - Tell MeMike Gudmann, Crystal Rock, Rotciv & Revilo - Little Do You KnowSandr Voxon, Olegie - Just LikeIdris Elba - BiggestScott Rill - High & DryClean Bandit, French The Kid, Rema - Sad GirlsAnna Grey - BloodlineMethner, Nexeri, Nicholas Roberts - GalaxyMinelli - ConfusedMOTi, Micheal Mendoza, Jinx the Soundsmith, Kristen Hanby, Junery - Happy MealJames Hurr, Smokin Jo, Stealth - Beggin' For ChangePhats & Small - Turn Around (Hey What's Wrong With You) (Les Bisous Remix)Kid Massive, DJ Huguito, Corey Andrew - Get DownJay Vegas - Good Ol' Days (Radio Edit)Antonia - IbizaSeb Skalski & Rona Ray - Toni's GrooveSofi Tukker, Tuck's Dad - Larry Bird (Sinego Remix)Carine, DJ Sava - MissingAlle Farben, Moss Kena - Forgot How to LoveOFFAIAH - Find A WayAntomage, Carine - Kisses BackDubdogz, Liu, Dubdisko - DancingTove Lo, Jax Jones - 2 Die 4 (Jax Jones Midnight Snacks Remix)Simon Fava, Sean Finn - Far L'Amore (Christian Cheval Radio Edit)Howie Conyack, Harddope, Syon - TroubleJames Hype, Miggy Dela Rosa, Lazza - Ferrari (Remix)DJ Dark, Mentol - Freak on (Radio Edit)Rubber People - Hit Em Up (Original Mix)Tom Enzy, Wilhelmina - London BridgeKideko, Josh Hunter - HookedZookëper, DW - Veranopartywithray, ZHU, Freak On - Lil Mama (FREAK ON Remix)Funkstar De Luxe - Coming Home (Edit)Poylow, Dennick, Dave Who, Zev - Burn With YouYouNotUs, bryska - Samba (bryska Version)Billen Ted, Shift K3Y - Step CorrectTelykast - Feel Alive (with Sky Blu of LMFAO)Terri-Anne - Round RoundHutcher - Closer 2 UUnklfnkl - Fuck It UpBorgeous - You're Not Mine

Episode 076 Dave Who? by The Sultans of Smoke

KERI: Hey guys, it’s Keri TV, and we have a very special guest here today.  This is Dave White, who is a big real estate investor, and also happens to be my father.  So excited to have him here for our special episode.  We were talking about this when we were in Palm Desert last weekend, about proposition 10 and proposition 5 and what it means.  I said, hey dad, will you film an episode with me?  So here we are.  KERI: As you know, the mid-term elections are coming up on the sixth of November.  It’s really important to get out there and vote, of course, whatever your views are.  We thought it was important for us to share a little bit about what these propositions mean in regards to real estate.  For our clients, this is our PSA.  First of all, we have proposition 10, which is the repeal of the Costa-Hawkins rent control act.  That is one of the propositions among the ballot.  Dave, tell us a little bit about what that means and what that means to homeowners. DAVE: Well, Costa-Hawkins brought rent control in.  Rent control is not really what everybody thought it was supposed to be.  It’s supposed to help the housing prices.  It’s been proven that rent control doesn’t help that at all.  Now, with Costa-Hawkins, every property is now going to come under rent control.  Your single-family home, your condominium, and your townhome.  The other sad thing about this is, at the present time, with the current system we have, when you rent your property, if your property’s under rent control, you rent it out for 1200 a month, and the other units in the building might be renting out for 2000 a month, in the current system, if those people paying 1250 move out, we can now rent that unit for the 2200, or whatever. KERI: Market value. DAVE: Market value. KERI: Right. DAVE: When they get rid of Costa-Hawkins, they’re going to make it so that if those people move out of that unit paying 1250, the next person coming in only has to pay 1250 as well. KERI: What about people who can’t really afford to live in buildings like this?  They’d love to live in a place for 1250.  Wouldn’t that be considered a good thing? DAVE: Well, it would be a good thing if all the people who couldn’t afford it could get into those buildings.  What happens is the lucky few who do end up in one never move out of them.  Now, all of a sudden after ten, fifteen, or twenty years you show up and here’s the guy renting the unit or the girl pulling up in their nice Ferrari. KERI: [laugh] DAVE: It’s an actual fact.  It’s supposed to be for low-income people.  The system just doesn’t work as it is.  It’s sad.  The lack of housing is caused because of supply and demand.  When you’ve got more supply than demand, as in other states, where the vacancy factor’s fifteen percent, what happens there is the landlords are having to offer moving expenses or one month free to get people into their units.  But out here in California, where it’s probably four percent, there’s no need for landlords to offer anything and everybody’s squirming to get into the unit. KERI: What happens when there are people paying low rents the other units get pushed up even more in costs, because there’s nothing available to rent.  When these people stay in these units and they never move out, it stops the flow of inflation in society and values going up, because property owners don’t want to have buildings where people are paying low income, because it doesn’t increase their value.  They tend to become slum lords, because they want market value rates and market value renters in there. DAVE: The other thing that happens is if you can only get 1250 dollars a month for your unit, which should be getting 2200, then it’s not even worth leasing it out.  You’d probably take it off the market. KERI: That’s exactly what happens.  Yeah. DAVE: Values drop.  When the value drops, that means there’s less property tax coming in.  What happens to the streets and everything the city has to look after when there’s less money coming in? KERI: With these new laws going in, it’s actually going to cost the taxpayers more money because they’re paying for these new rules.  If property values are decreasing, the city’s going to lose money.  There’s actually less money going towards emergency services, schools, and it actually will not create the low-income housing that they’re saying that it will. DAVE: Back East, many years ago, they brought rent control in.  All the students decided they wanted to get low-income.  What happened?  All these students never moved out of the units.  All of a sudden, they decided, this doesn’t work.  They changed the rules and got rid of the rent control. Now all those people who have been there for years finally went and bought homes and moved out of the apartments. KERI: Yeah.  That’s another thing that’s so important.  It happens a lot here in Santa Monica.  Someone will be paying 800 or maybe 1200 for a one-bedroom or two-bedroom, or even 2200 for a two-bedroom near the beach, they don’t have motivation to move because they’re getting such a good deal.  Then what happens when ten, twenty, or thirty years go by, sure, they’ve been living with low-rent, they don’t own anything.  They haven’t built any equity.  They don’t have anything to show for themselves.  You could be in a place that has grown five hundred, seven fifty, in equity and have a great retirement or invest in other buildings that make you more money.  Isn’t the whole goal to one day be sipping margaritas on the beach?  Right dad? DAVE: Two years ago, I met a guy on a party on a boat. KERI: Oh. DAVE: That’s what you do, right, when you have real estate? KERI: That’s what you do. DAVE: Anyway, I talked to this guy and he said I’d like to buy something.  He was sixty-two years old.  I said to him, well, what do you own now?  He said, I don’t own anything.  Unfortunately, I got caught up by rent control. KERI: What did he say? DAVE: He said, I got tied up with rent control. KERI: Caught up with rent control, did you hear that?  Tell us more. DAVE: Because he thought he was on a great bargain because he was only paying a thousand dollars a month. KERI: Right. DAVE: For this unit in Santa Monica that everybody else was paying 3000 dollars a month for.  He said, I watched all my friends who couldn’t get into rent control go out and buy homes and he said, now, they’re all worth a lot more money than me because their homes have gone up in value. KERI: There’s nothing wrong with paying a low rent, of course.  But the long-term game is to make money, to invest, and to retire.  The short side of that vision is that rent control’s a good thing when in fact it decreases property values, it lessens the money going to the government, and it creates slum lords. DAVE: It creates a shortage. KERI: And a shortage. DAVE: Who is going to build more buildings when you can’t make money on them?  Because the other thing that we haven’t made a way yet, when or if Costa-Hawkins gets voted out, that means that now the government can come in and tell you how much you can rent your home out for, your unit.  They can decide what you get for it. KERI: So, you know how your relator tries to tell you what price you should rent one of your units or your houses?  Now, instead of listening to the advice, you’re going to get told.  Well, this is what you can rent it for and we don’t care what you think.  So, does that sound like a fun thing for anybody?  Probably not.  Of course, do your research, investigate everything you can about proposition 10, but when it comes to real estate and building equity and building wealth, which is what we’re proponents of, we’re saying vote no on proposition 10. DAVE: Hey, let’s imagine that prop 10 doesn’t pass, we’re going to go and buy another building! KERI: [cheer] Yay!  We’re going to buy a building.  To summarize, we vote no on proposition 10, because we want to keep our property values increasing, we want to keep the market stable with the right market value rents and we don’t want to increase our taxpayer dollars, do you?  Now, the other proposition we want to highlight that has to do with real estate and our clients, of course, is proposition 5.  This is super exciting because right now, as it exists, if you are 55 or older, you can take your tax basis with you one time for one move.  What this is going to do is allow people that are over 55, plus people who are disabled or victims of natural disasters to take their tax basis more than once and for any price point.  This is super exciting because of all the people that get stuck in their homes because they can’t afford another twenty grand a year on taxes.  Dave, tell us a little bit more about why you think we should vote yes on proposition 5. It’s yes, right?  Yes on 5? DAVE: Yes, it is. KERI: Okay, yes on 5. DAVE: Like 10 is bad for real estate, 5 is excellent for real estate. KERI: So good for real estate.  DAVE: It is. KERI: And old people. DAVE: Right. KERI: We like old people. DAVE: But remember one thing.  When you purchase your home for 200,000 and your property tax is below, they only go up one percent a year. KERI: I calculated a hundred grand.  1800. DAVE: Okay.  But the problem is when you go to buy a house that’s a million dollars, now your taxes are going to be way up there.  That’s what stops a lot of people from selling their homes.  Here’s the other thing that hurts the older people like me.  We can’t sell.  We’ve got this big house that’s got a pool and huge gardens, and we’re wasting all our money. KERI: Unused bedrooms. DAVE: Now, with prop 5, we can sell, move to a beautiful home on the beach, and only pay the low taxes.  The biggest change with this is, the way it is now, you can only do this once. KERI: Once. DAVE: You can move once and get the property tax saving.  The other big thing is, in the old way, if you sold your house for a million and you had to buy something, you could only go three percent above.  Now you can go and pay whatever you want for a house. KERI: Yeah. DAVE: You could pay two million, if you wanted to. KERI: Which is so great.  Yeah. DAVE: Well, the big thing is, most people, when they’re older, they’ve paid their houses off.  So, it’s all cash. KERI: All cash.  Cash, cash, money.  That’s the thing too.  They can take all that cash, buy something with cash, and then they only have a low property tax.  Say they bought their house for a hundred grand.  They’re selling it for a million or a million five.  They move into a cool condo on Ocean Avenue or a little house somewhere nearby.  They’re not paying anything monthly, which is the whole point, because they can’t afford it, and the property taxes don’t change.  Their lifestyle remains the same.  You get to have mom and dad around for raising the grandkids.  It’s also really great for people who are disabled, same thing.  They need to move into something that works for their disability, whether it’s one-level or smaller.  Then, the other factor is for people who are victims of natural disasters that happened this year.  Floods, fires. DAVE: Grandkids?  I’m excited to hear grandkids.  Grandkids, wow. KERI: Get excited dad. DAVE: Sounds great! KERI: Got to get married first.  Anyways.  Sh.  So, we know that proposition 5, a vote yes on proposition 5 will help even a lot of our clients who are trying to buy a property, and there’s more people that would sell if they could take their tax basis with them, and then these awesome young couples or young couples with babies could move into their houses, to their four and five bedrooms with pools.  So, overall, it will stimulate the economy, stimulate housing, open up inventory which we all know, we’ve had a shortage of inventory, right? DAVE: Right.  Let’s help these older people that worked all their lives to support the community they live in.  Let’s help them out, now that they’re old and retired and enjoy life. KERI: Yes!  And help the disabled and help the natural disaster victims.  Proposition 5!  Vote yes!  Again, if you have any questions about proposition 5 or proposition 10, do your research.  We always vote for real estate wealth and real estate economy and your wealth, and that is why we are giving these tips today on Keri TV. DAVE: Fantastic. KERI: Fantastic.  Thank you for joining me.  

Dave(Who is drunk) and Kurt discuss the disappointments of Kurts PGA DFS, and Justin Thomas's lack of balls. They also jump into NHL for March 7th - March 9th And the PGA Valspar. 

We meet with Dave Weller to discuss the issues surrounding native and non-native English teachers such as attitudes of parents and teachers, the responsibilities of language schools and how to change opinions.Tracy: Hello, everyone.Ross Thorburn: Hi, folks.Tracy: Today, we've got our regular podcast guest...Both: Dave Weller.Ross: Hello, Dave.Dave Weller: Hello, everybody. I was trying not to say hurrah again.[laughter]Dave: Regular listeners will know what I mean.Ross: Dave's here this week to talk with us about a rather controversial issue...Tracy: Which is native English speaking‑teachers versus non‑native English‑speaking teachers.Ross: Today, we've got three questions. The first one is what's all the fuss about? Second...Tracy: What do the parents and the students think about it? The third one...Ross: What can managers and schools do about it?What’s the “Native” / “Non native Teacher” debate about?Ross: Guys, what's the debate about?Tracy: Based on my understanding, just schools, parents, teachers and students feel a different mode of English ‑‑ native or non‑native...They've got advantages and disadvantages. So it seems more people, native English‑speaking teachers and have a better model of English.Ross: As well as that, it seems like there's a bit of a tendency in the industry that native speakers who are teachers will tend to get paid more. Native speakers who are teachers will tend to be given more opportunities.Dave: Actually, I read about a study that looks at higher education institutions in the UK. They found over 70 percent of them made hiring decisions for staff based on whether they were native or non‑native speakers.Ross: That doesn't surprise me a lot. It's almost like our whole methodology and approach to teaching language, doing everything in the students' L2, is almost based around having native‑speaking teachers, right?Dave: Definitely. It goes really deep. Again, there's different levels of it. It's fine if it just stayed as an opinion, but once it turns into action, policy and systems, that's where discrimination kicks in. It becomes distinctly unfair and entrenched within our industry. Despite being what a lot of people think of as a very nice and liberal industry, it hides quite a lot of trade dark secrets.Ross: Interestingly, if you do any reading on this, you find that it becomes very difficult to define what a native speaker actually is. One thing that you can't deny is that the person grew up speaking English, but when you start to look at other criteria, they're very, very woolly.It tends to be things like they can be creative with language, they don't have a foreign accent, they're aware of the culture of the language. All these things, which clearly, it's possible...Dave: Of course. Non‑native speakers have that as well.Ross: Ultimately, you get to this point where, really, the only difference between the two is that one of them grew up speaking English, and one didn't. Which, if you're learning English from someone, is pretty irrelevant, isn't it, what language or what they did in their childhood. Who cares about that?Dave: Precisely. All you really care about is how good they are as a teacher, how well then can connect with you in the classroom, they can motivate you, and all the other things that go into making up a good teacher.This whole argument actually needs to be rephrased into clearer lines. Silvana Richardson mentioned in her IATEFL that we need a new word for non‑native speakers. For me, that word would just be English teachers.There's no point devolving that word into finer detail. You should actually go back up the chain. We're all English teachers. Just some of us have different skills and backgrounds than others.If we were to do that, it would solve a lot of these problems. When you talk about a teacher, you can, "OK, which language can they speak and at what level?" That way, you can say, "Well, in the old parlance, there's this native‑speaking teacher who can speak a little bit of the learner's L1, but not to their level."Then there's a native speaker who can't speak any. Then there's a non‑native speaker who is local to the area. Then there's a non‑native speaker that isn't local from the area."Ross: Part of it is linguistic determinism. The Sapir‑Whorf hypothesis, made famous by the recent movie ‑‑ "Arrival." This idea that because of the language that we use, that we have to describe the teachers as native and non‑native teachers or speakers, that's the thing that we end up focusing on.If we changed it, and say, we called them monolingual or bilingual teachers, then which of those would you have a preference for?Dave: I agree to a point, but this is why I might be against that. I can't say everything goes as you plan. Then in 20 years' time, you actually might get a reverse situation where there's prejudice against native speakers because of the bilingualism versus monolingualism.All I think you should do is revert back to the phrase teachers and then what skills does that teacher have.What do parents and the students think about “Native” / “Non- native Teachers”?Ross: Interesting in that the research I've done on this and the survey where I looked at parents, students, teachers, and sales and service staff, and asked every group, I had a bunch of different attributes in there.For example, attitudes, qualifications, personalities, relationship with students, being native speakers, what people look like, their nationality, and their ability to speak the student's L1.The number one thing was definitely not being a native speaker. That ranked about number three or number four in people's preference. The native or non‑native speaker is...people use that as a proxy.It's something that if you don't know anything about the industry, then you can relate to that very, very easily, but if you're a parent and you don't know anything about language learning, you're not going to know what qualifications the teachers should have.It's very difficult to see what the teachers' attitudes are or their personalities, if any, or of those things. It is quite simple to check. Is this person a native speaker or not?Dave: I find it fascinating. To go back to non‑native speakerism for a second, I was reading some of Adrian Holliday's work. He said that it started out as almost a marketing ploy from various aid agencies back in the '60s to propagate the idea that native speakers were the best model.In which case, that obviously links up to the idea that Silvana Richardson said in her plenary that we can change the perception in the industry. All it takes is a little time.With research that backs this up ‑‑ research coming out that actually says that it's not just OK, but beneficial to use L1 in the classroom ‑‑ you put those things together, then this is the way forward to actually eradicate bias in our industry.Ross: Let me play you that quote from Silvana now.Silvana Richardson: Employers always have choices. Collusion with inequality and prejudice is a choice. Discrimination is a choice. As Rajagopalan says, "In our neoliberal world, who will dare challenge what the market dictates?"The answer to this is, just because the market is demanding certain things, it does not mean that the market itself cannot be made to perceive things differently.Ross: Do you think that's true? Is that realistic though, that the market can be made to perceive...Dave: Of course, it is. Yeah, definitely. If you look on an individual on a mass scale, how many times have we changed our minds over the course of our professional development over the last 10, 15 years?Precisely, it's the same thing with the industry. Industries change, ideas change, views change. It happens usually, I would argue, from the ground up rather than direct from above, especially in an industry such as ours which is quite fragmented and has no overarching body to dictate the standards.Tracy: I still think there is a huge market, because you just look at the education companies doing online or offline. The business...they create the scenario, and having native English teachers is the better choice.Ross: In that case, do you think it's an easier or difficult or a long or short task to change the way that Chinese parents and students see local teachers?Tracy: It's going to be a long way. I have to say all the non‑native teachers need to work really hard, because if you constantly made the mistakes, and you constantly misspell the word, and you constantly use the utterances or expressions that people don't normally use, and use those language to teach your students, there is a problem.Ross: It's so unfair, because I see a lot of really bad native‑speaking teachers [laughs] who don't get picked up on making teaching mistakes or methodological mistakes.Dave: Or even language mistakes of teaching language which is highly improbable, possible but doesn't often get used. They end up teaching...It's, maybe, not going technically wrong, but you'll hear people teaching language that never gets used.Ross: They're from one particular part of the Deep South in America and they use a phrase that only them and their family and the people in that village use and are like, "I've never heard it before."I don't see them getting picked up on those mistakes. They tend to get a free pass because they're a native speaker. That's really unfair.Tracy: A lot of teachers or parents always say, "Oh, I want my student or my child to speak Standard English," or "All the students should learn Standard English."Dave: There's no such thing anymore, is there?Ross: I don't think so. Is that a cultural concept that exists in China? There is a standard Chinese, but there's no Standard English.Dave: Let's play devil's advocate just for a second. I can clearly understand what they mean though. Even though we're looking at it from a technician's point of view, we're looking at it from a point of view of professionals in the industry. What parents mean...it's almost like the shadows on Plato's cave, to take it deep for a second.The concept of a horse, despite all horses can look slightly different...Again, they're using that term as a proxy of an English that will be understood around the world. No matter where they go, it'll be effortless to be able to communicate with other English‑speaking teachers and not be hindered in any way through pronunciation or grammar or phrase. That's shorthand for what they're trying to say.Ross: Indeed, but is it not also the case that a very, very small percentage of learners will learn English or an accent or something to the point where they're at that level of, "Oh, I want to sound English" or "I want to sound American," but, really, for most of the students I've taught, even after years, they sound Chinese, because...Dave: Maybe your students, Ross.[laughter]Dave: Sorry, that's such a flippant answer. No, I completely agree with your point. In fact, I'd even add to that and say, it's not about increasing their level. It's about teaching the skills to grade their language if they do encounter another non‑native speaker who has trouble understanding their accent, maybe because they're from a quite different culture. Again, you're arguing against a perception and a belief.What can managers and schools do about “Native” / Non-native Teacher” discriminationRoss: Can we talk for a minute about language schools and, maybe, what language schools can do about that? I've got another Silvana quote for you. Do you mind if I play this briefly?Dave: Please do.Silvana: This is part of the California/Nevada's position paper opposing discrimination against non‑native English speaking teachers. It says, "Teaching job announcements that indicate a preference or requirement for a native speaker of English trivialize the professional development teachers have received and teaching experience they have already acquired.Such announcements are also discriminatory and ultimately harm all teachers ‑‑ native or not ‑‑ by devaluing teacher education, professionalism, and experience.Ross: To what extent do you guys agree or disagree with that?Dave: 100 percent. Again, I really speak with authority from my background, which is as a native speaker. Again, it does trivialize my experience and the amount of work I've put in over the last 15 years of professional development, studying...Ross: Getting qualifications and things...Dave: Precisely. The extra work I've put in ‑‑ thousands of hours ‑‑ and then to be reduced to being called, "He's a native speaker. He'll do."Ross: It still happens so often. Tracy, you had something like that a few weeks ago over organizing a teacher training thing here. Again, you've obviously got your diploma, you're studying your MA, you've been a tutor and a course director on accredited courses.The people running the course said, "Oh, can you make sure there's a native speaker or foreigner for at least half the course?"Dave: Who's just finished a 40‑hour online course, perhaps.Ross: Or maybe not even that. Isn't it fascinating that that still persists?Tracy: They even didn't care about what qualifications or experience they have. Also interesting, the person from the organization even asked me, "Can you tell me more about this trainer?"I said, "OK. Maybe I can ask this person to send the CV, send the training, teaching experience." She said, "We really don't care about it. Just tell me his age, which country he's from, and also if he's white or black."Ross: What about on the flip side for a minute then, Dave? As someone who used to be a director of studies before in a school where you had to make hiring decisions, where's this balance? Were you ever in some tough situations there?Dave: [laughs] Yes.Ross: How did that work out then?Dave: The thing is, as a manager ‑‑ anyone who's been a manager, I'm sure, can relate to this ‑‑ you have to pick and choose your battles. That was the one that I'll actually go to bat for.If you had several candidates and various degrees of discrimination in different things as one that Tracy mentioned earlier about someone's skin color, also about non‑native speaking teachers, you just go and not actually ask if these persons' qualified, they're capable, they've gone through the interview process, and that they would be a good fit for this team, they'd be a good fit for this country, and they'd be a great fit for our school.Then you'd put your foot down. You'd have an argument, almost, with the culture of the school. If you won ‑‑ sometimes you did, sometimes you didn't ‑‑ often, unfortunately, it depended on how badly the school needed teachers, and how many classes waiting you had, how many students waiting to start class.Unfortunately, it was usually the deciding factor. Once the teacher arrived, whereas the students after a few lessons, would be delighted with the experienced teacher, the parents would turn and become delighted and insist on having that teacher as a future teacher for their children.What’s does the future hold for “Non-native English teachers”?Dave: It's always sad that we actually have to do this, or that it's something that we do have to get passionate about. Do spread the word on.I'm very optimistic about it. I like to think there are enough people out there that people will go back, spread the word, and take small actions. There will be this groundswell of people that do this.Ross: All right, Dave, thanks very much for coming on. It was a pleasure talking to you again.Dave: It's a pleasure to be here, as always. Thank you.[background music]Tracy: Thanks, Dave. Bye, everybody.Ross: Bye.Tracy: For more podcasts, videos, and blogs, visit our website...Both: Www.tefltraininginstitute.com.Ross: If you've got a question or a topic you'd like us to discuss, leave us a comment...Tracy: If you want to keep up to date with our latest content, add us on WeChat @tefltraininginstitute.Ross: If you enjoyed our podcast, please rate us on iTunes.

Last week we had Dave Payerchin, and this week we have his partner RJ Pepino. Together they run Columbus Turn Key Houses. They’re an extraordinary company that provides incredible returns on profits for doing your investing in Columbus. RJ has closed over 150 real estate transactions, he’s an expert in the Columbus market, he’s had formal training in deal structuring and creative financing, and he also has a B.A. in Marketing from Youngstown State University.   “Don’t wait for opportunities. Create opportunities.” – RJ Pepino RJ went from selling cellphones at AT&T to being the manager, to fixing and flipping houses; so he tells us all about his transition, and then tells us a bit about how he learned the problems associated with not having proper contracts, the hard way. He shares his advice for running a successful business, and describes the importance of hiring and delegating people to help you run yours successfully. Today’s topics include: How RJ helps run the company with Dave Who he is and what his expertise is in real estate. Four different ways of getting money as a landlord What made him want to get involved in real estate RJ’s breaking point to entering real estate “You don’t want to make any handshake deals in real estate.” – RJ Pepino Today’s REIP strategy: “When you’re talking to a seller, you have to ask good questions. For example, some of the questions we ask if they’ve called in for a property are: “Do you have any other properties for sale?” “Are you in the market to buy properties?” “If you’re not in the market for our price point, do you know anyone that is, and is wanting to sell?” “Pressure will crush you if you fold, but you have two choices: you can either flex or fold. And personally, I like to flex.” - RJ Pepino Thanks for listening, and be sure to pay attention so you can find out how to get your free real estate investing guide today. Links and resources mentioned: Columbus Turnkey Houses The Collective Genius Mastermind "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" by Robert T. Kiyosaki Rocket Fuel by Gino Wickman Traction by Gino Wickman The 4-Hour Work Week Books by Dolores Cannon Books by Grant Cardone Rocket Lawyer Dropbox Periscope Calm Gratitude   Ask Cory A Question Want to get in touch with Cory and ask him your most burning Real Estate Investing question?  We’ve made it super easy for you.  Just head over to our Ask Cory A Question page and start recording.  Cory will play your question live on an upcoming show and answer it personally. Who Do You Want To Hear From? Name some folks I should get on the show! Hit me up: support@realestateinvestingprofits.com and I’ll do my best to get them on. Did You Get Your FREE Investing Guide? TEXT the word PROFIT (38470) to immediately sent Your FREE Investing Quick Start Guide! JOIN The Elite Real Estate Investor’s Board of Directors http://JoinMyMastermind.com Connect Here Please check out our website, realestateinvestingprofits.com for the “Down and Dirty” Ultimate Real Estate Investing Quick Start Guide download. Join us on the Real Estate Investing Profits Facebook site too!