Well, you're way off on your math. Just the communications and scheduling of those 9 prospects (and dealing with no-shows, late-shows -- not to mention getting there and back, because it's not like you can get them all to show up in the same time window, back-to-back) involves a very significant multiplier on the 20 minutes per actual showing (1.5 hours per actual, physically appearing prospect) would be a better estimate).

And ditto with the overhead on everything else you're mentioning. Plus they have side costs, and (significant) downtime between clients, etc. I'm not saying these are wonderful people that deserve every penny they're paid. But there's no way the "average" broker is taking in around $7k a week (or $350k a year) as your math would seem to imply.

My argument is that a better model is to compensate the agent hourly vs. commission.

If that was in any way viable it would have happened along time ago. There are reasons the compensation is commission-based; it's because it's basically a sales job, and the same remuneration logic applies: you get paid for closing a sale -- not for posting ads on Craigslist, or for talking up the parquet floors and fireplace and how great the restaurants are.