The difference is the realtors want you to pay them money for their services. The recruiters want to pay you money for your services.

Sort of. They sell your services to a company and make money on the sale. Even recruiters that technically work in-house for a company are usually on contract and won't be there long, I really doubt they are thinking about their job as paying you for something they want.

I meant from the perspective of the user/consumer/customer.

One says "I am very useful, please pay me $100k!"

The other says "I think you are very useful, please consider this $100k signing bonus!"

Yes, they're both trying to sell you something. But it's very different when someone is trying to take your money and someone is trying to offer you money.

But it's not their bonus to give. The recruiters' incentives are structured the same way as the realtors: they're facilitating a transaction while taking a commission. Sell-side realtor:employer-side recruiter::buy-side realtor:employee-side recruiter. The main difference is that you're not legally obligated to go through a recruiter to get a job, so recruiters have to work a bit harder to justify their value.

Okay, I am obviously failing to communicate my point.

I don't care whether or not recruiters literally have money to pay you. The point is, recruiters are in a position of trying to offer you money in exchange for services. Realtors are in the position of trying to offer you services in exchange for money. That was the juxtaposition I was pointing out.

I agree, it does look nicer from the recruit's side :)

No the recruiter wants to get paid by their employer. As long as the checks keep coming in they're just going to keep doing whatever it is they're doing.