Undercover Investigation Reveals Evidence Of Unequal Treatment By Real Estate Agents

[ruby sparks]

In our time of multiple real estate websites, if you’re interested in a house there seems little an agent can do to stop that. No agent? Then just go to the open house.

Are you arguing that it doesn't matter if these real estate agents are bigots because people can use the internet or are you just trolling?

How is this trolling? We bought our house a few years ago. That was our experience. With all the available information, the buyer has a lot of power.

Ok not trolling. So it was the first thing LD suggested? I mean, same question to you as to metaphor, of what relevance is it if people can get around such things by certain means?

 

[Jarhyn]

ITT:

Identical applicants of different perceived race treated differently, with 'black' applicants being segregated.

Racists: ITs nOt RaCIst BeCAuSE ThE agENtS JusT AsSumED thAT The aPPlICAntS WaNtEd tO Be SegreGAtED sO ThE ApPlIcANTs ArE ThE ReaL RAcISts

Seriously? This is textbook racial profiling. AKA racism. It's racist to assume someone wants to be racially segregated.

 

[Metaphor]

I want to know how realistic the scenarios are of somebody walking into a real estate agent and being directed to particular properties, rather than (what I would expect), somebody researches properties online in the areas they're interested in and then approaches the real estate agent to see certain houses.

Why do you want to know that?

To get an understanding of what effect agent actions and prejudices and preferences actually have on the segregation of neighbourhoods.

People have prejudices (though they're not necessarily "racist" - which used to mean discrimination against somebody to their detriment because you believe your own race is superior, and now means god knows what). These prejudices might be "people want to live in neighbourhoods that is composed of as many people of their own race/ethnicity as possible". But, if somebody does not have the infrastructure to enact their prejudices, their prejudices don't matter.

 

[Metaphor]

ITT:

Identical applicants of different perceived race treated differently, with 'black' applicants being segregated.

Racists: ITs nOt RaCIst BeCAuSE ThE agENtS JusT AsSumED thAT The aPPlICAntS WaNtEd tO Be SegreGAtED sO ThE ApPlIcANTs ArE ThE ReaL RAcISts

Seriously? This is textbook racial profiling. AKA racism. It's racist to assume someone wants to be racially segregated.

'Black' applicants weren't segregated. White ones were.

 

[Jarhyn]

ITT:

Identical applicants of different perceived race treated differently, with 'black' applicants being segregated.

Racists: ITs nOt RaCIst BeCAuSE ThE agENtS JusT AsSumED thAT The aPPlICAntS WaNtEd tO Be SegreGAtED sO ThE ApPlIcANTs ArE ThE ReaL RAcISts

Seriously? This is textbook racial profiling. AKA racism. It's racist to assume someone wants to be racially segregated.

'Black' applicants weren't segregated. White ones were.

Yes, they were. By keeping white neighborhoods segregated, they were segregating black people. You can't segregate white people without segregating black people.

Housing is zero sum.

 

[Metaphor]

ITT:

Identical applicants of different perceived race treated differently, with 'black' applicants being segregated.

Racists: ITs nOt RaCIst BeCAuSE ThE agENtS JusT AsSumED thAT The aPPlICAntS WaNtEd tO Be SegreGAtED sO ThE ApPlIcANTs ArE ThE ReaL RAcISts

Seriously? This is textbook racial profiling. AKA racism. It's racist to assume someone wants to be racially segregated.

'Black' applicants weren't segregated. White ones were.

Yes, they were. By keeping white neighborhoods segregated, they were segregating black people. You can't segregate white people without segregating black people.

Housing is zero sum.

So why did you mention only the segregation of black applicants?

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, they were. By keeping white neighborhoods segregated, they were segregating black people. You can't segregate white people without segregating black people.

Housing is zero sum.

So why did you mention only the segregation of black applicants?

That is your reason for obscuring the apparent racial profiling?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some problems here:

1) The biggest issue was whether they were prequalified or not--being more willing to show houses to someone without prequalification if they were white. To a large degree this is a financial judgment call--does this person seem to know enough about the finances. That's not something they will do a good job of controlling for using paired testers.

2) The next thing they are squawking about is realtors steering buyers to neighborhoods generally favored by other homebuyers of their race. Hey, that's their job--find what the customer wants!

This looks like once again having to stretch to find "evidence" of discrimination.

People don't have to be pre-qualified for loans in order to be shown properties. For some types of loans, you have to apply to purchase a specific property. It is not unusual for people to first see what's available and then apply for a loan if they find something they like. And anyway, "does this person seem to know enough about the finances?" is not a question a real estate agent should be asking or would even consider. They get commissions on sales. The bigger the price tag, the bigger the commission.

But it most certainly is something they should be asking for their own personal reasons:

A real estate agent only gets paid if the customer buys a house, but is going to cost the agent just about as much whether they buy one or not. Thus it's in the agent's interest to not show houses to those who aren't qualified. It's a balancing act--if someone comes in without a prequalification you have to decide if the odds of them being able to buy are high enough to risk investing time and miles. Accept too easily and you waste your time on the unqualified, reject too easily and you lose too many actual sales.

Their pairing was based on faked actual finances, not upon how the people will appear to the realtor--this aspect of the test was actually totally lacking in controls. And you don't understand about prequalification--it's not based on a specific house and isn't a guarantee the bank will fund a particular mortgage. Rather, it's an evaluation that it appears they will be approved to borrow up to $x. Without that it comes down to the prospect's evaluation of whether they can afford it--and for the financially naive that can be wildly wrong. Thus showing houses to the naive who aren't prequalified is a far bigger risk than showing them to those who know what they're doing.

If the more expensive houses are in neighborhoods where whites congregate, then that's where the agent should want to make a sale. But the race of the prospective buyer influences whether they'll be shown those properties, with black buyers being noticeably less likely to be given a walk-through.

Showing a buyer a house they can't afford is a waste of time. And an agent is better off finding a house they want quickly than finding the most expensive house they could buy but taking longer at doing it. The difference in what they'll make nowhere near makes up for the time invested. (You have the same problem with selling--the agent is more interested in making a sale than in getting the best price.)

I think some agents fear blowback if they sell a house to a black family and the neighborhood racists take offense. I also think some of the agents are racists themselves, and are doing their part to preserve racial segregation in certain communities. Either way, racial discrimination in the real estate business is an ongoing problem.

Blowback how? There are far too many agents out there for the few people who know what happened boycotting a given agent to have any meaningful effect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are talking Nassau and Suffolk counties here... where people who aren't "pre-qualified" go home shopping.

Did the customers say they wanted segregation?

This looks like once again having to stretch to find "evidence" of discrimination.

You likely didn't even read the report.

It's not what they say they want, but what history shows they buy.

Admittedly, in the presence of substantial racism it could be self-fulfilling. However, if it was racism we should be able to see it by breaking it down by the race of the agent.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, they were. By keeping white neighborhoods segregated, they were segregating black people. You can't segregate white people without segregating black people.

Housing is zero sum.

So why did you mention only the segregation of black applicants?

That is your reason for obscuring the apparent racial profiling?

I obscured nothing; I was pointing out the bias in Jarhyn's characterisation.

In general, I don't think people should discriminate based on race. But I also think people have prejudices, from malicious to benign, that will always affect their behavior. We should encourage systems where people's prejudices about race can't have much influence.

For example, one of the agents in the study said they needed a pre-approval letter in one case, but not in the other. A policy around when pre-approval letters are required should be implemented, and exceptions to the policy should be rare but justifiable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some problems here:

1) The biggest issue was whether they were prequalified or not--being more willing to show houses to someone without prequalification if they were white. To a large degree this is a financial judgment call--does this person seem to know enough about the finances. That's not something they will do a good job of controlling for using paired testers.

2) The next thing they are squawking about is realtors steering buyers to neighborhoods generally favored by other homebuyers of their race. Hey, that's their job--find what the customer wants!

This looks like once again having to stretch to find "evidence" of discrimination.

Try reading the article.

How could I have posted that without having read at least part of it? I got tired of it when I saw they didn't have anything solid, it was the usual stretch to claim discrimination with inadequate evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Now, why would someone think whether or not a buyer seems to know enough about the finances because of their race? It is a mystery.

The point is the system of paired applicants doesn't control one bit for this. Fewer blacks own homes, thus fewer will know just how it goes.

Now why would anyone assume where homebuyers want to live instead of asking them? Hmmm,

Because the homebuyers often don't know exactly what they want.

This looks like once again having to stretch to find "evidence" of discrimination.

Actually, it looks more like once again someone is having to stretch to explain away possible discrimination.

The burden of proof is one the side making the claim--and I'm saying there are big holes in their "proof".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I did read the article. I want to know how realistic the scenarios are of somebody walking into a real estate agent and being directed to particular properties, rather than (what I would expect), somebody researches properties online in the areas they're interested in and then approaches the real estate agent to see certain houses. The article doesn't answer that.

At least the last time we were house hunting if you wanted a new house you generally got it by looking for developments but if you wanted a used house you walked into a real estate agent's office and told them what you were looking for. The listing data is now available online but it's not exactly friendly to the average person and for unoccupied houses the only way to see them is with an agent. (If the house isn't occupied there will be a key stored in a lockbox outside the house. The agent can use their key and code to open the box--the box records who opened it. Occupied houses may be seen this way or by appointment with those living in it.)

 

[Arctish]

But it most certainly is something they should be asking for their own personal reasons:

I'm sure real estate agents are happier knowing their clients are pre-qualified, but the client isn't under any obligation to be pre-qualified before asking an agent to show them a property. If the agent only wants to deal with pre-qualified buyers, fine, but any assumption that blacks won't be pre-qualified is racist to its core.

A real estate agent only gets paid if the customer buys a house, but is going to cost the agent just about as much whether they buy one or not. Thus it's in the agent's interest to not show houses to those who aren't qualified. It's a balancing act--if someone comes in without a prequalification you have to decide if the odds of them being able to buy are high enough to risk investing time and miles. Accept too easily and you waste your time on the unqualified, reject too easily and you lose too many actual sales.

We're not talking about people who appeared to be unable to afford to buy a house. We're talking about people who appeared to be able to afford houses in the same price range but some weren't shown houses others were, apparently because of their race.

Their pairing was based on faked actual finances, not upon how the people will appear to the realtor--this aspect of the test was actually totally lacking in controls.

"How people will appear to the realtor"? Do you mean, some will appear to be black and that will affect the realtor's decision on which houses to show them? That is precisely the kind of racism the OP is about.

And you don't understand about prequalification--it's not based on a specific house and isn't a guarantee the bank will fund a particular mortgage. Rather, it's an evaluation that it appears they will be approved to borrow up to $x. Without that it comes down to the prospect's evaluation of whether they can afford it--and for the financially naive that can be wildly wrong. Thus showing houses to the naive who aren't prequalified is a far bigger risk than showing them to those who know what they're doing.

If you think for one minute that realtors are agents of the Nanny State, and will throw away a chance to make a big sale in order to spare a client the anguish of struggling to pay a mortgage, you're dreaming.

If you think realtors see blacks as naïve and doubt they can secure a home loan, that's racist, both on your part and theirs. If it's true that black people are less likely to secure home loans, that's indicative of even more racism.

If the more expensive houses are in neighborhoods where whites congregate, then that's where the agent should want to make a sale. But the race of the prospective buyer influences whether they'll be shown those properties, with black buyers being noticeably less likely to be given a walk-through.

Showing a buyer a house they can't afford is a waste of time. And an agent is better off finding a house they want quickly than finding the most expensive house they could buy but taking longer at doing it. The difference in what they'll make nowhere near makes up for the time invested. (You have the same problem with selling--the agent is more interested in making a sale than in getting the best price.)

I think some agents fear blowback if they sell a house to a black family and the neighborhood racists take offense. I also think some of the agents are racists themselves, and are doing their part to preserve racial segregation in certain communities. Either way, racial discrimination in the real estate business is an ongoing problem.

Blowback how? There are far too many agents out there for the few people who know what happened boycotting a given agent to have any meaningful effect.

You should read what people went through during the 1960s when neighborhoods were being desegregated. Boycotting the agents who facilitated the sale of houses to black families was the least of it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Fuck me but some of the mealy-mouthed apologetics and racism denial going on here is embarrassing to watch.

 

[Jarhyn]

Fuck me but some of the mealy-mouthed apologetics and racism denial going on here is embarrassing to watch.

I know, right? The point is that they treated identical pre-qualified people differently.

That. Is. Racial. Profiling.

Racism.

 

[ruby sparks]

The point is that they treated identical pre-qualified people differently.

That. Is. Racial. Profiling.

And steering.



Appalling is a good word for many of the responses here. I might even say shameful, on a supposedly rationalist forum, where asking theists to face facts is a daily routine.

'I'm against racism, but....'

'It's not necessarily racism though....'

'It's just socioeconomics....' (as if racism wasn't and indeed isn't an inherently related factor in that).

'But what about university admissions?......' (and other similar detours away from the relevant main point).

Granted, no one piece of evidence is conclusive. That's partly why I am adding to my 'unequal opportunity race' thread when something like this item is posted. The sum total of what's in that other thread is surely very persuasive indeed compelling, or should be, to any reasonable person. Quite apart from anything else, the silence in that thread, from certain quarters, is/was deafening.

 

[laughing dog]

The point is the system of paired applicants doesn't control one bit for this. Fewer blacks own homes, thus fewer will know just how it goes.

Totally irrelevant.

Because the homebuyers often don't know exactly what they want.

Totally irrelevant. An agent ought to ask what they are looking for. In my experience, that is the first thing they ask. Hell, it is the first thing they ask on all the HGTV house hunting shows.

The burden of proof is one the side making the claim--and I'm saying there are big holes in their "proof".

It is not a proof - but strong evidence to the disinterested. Your big holes are pathetic apologia.

 

[ronburgundy]

I want to know how realistic the scenarios are of somebody walking into a real estate agent and being directed to particular properties, rather than (what I would expect), somebody researches properties online in the areas they're interested in and then approaches the real estate agent to see certain houses.

Why do you want to know that?

To get an understanding of what effect agent actions and prejudices and preferences actually have on the segregation of neighbourhoods.

People have prejudices (though they're not necessarily "racist" - which used to mean discrimination against somebody to their detriment because you believe your own race is superior, and now means god knows what). These prejudices might be "people want to live in neighbourhoods that is composed of as many people of their own race/ethnicity as possible". But, if somebody does not have the infrastructure to enact their prejudices, their prejudices don't matter.

It is extremely realistic to enlist an agent to help you find properties, especially in markets (Long Island among them) where there is high competition among buyers and if you don't have an agent, you won't know about new listings until they are already gone.

Also, these agents did cause harm to the clients via full-fledged racism. They didn't merely direct clients to race-similar neighborhoods, they outright refused to provide service for some clients or required that they meet higher criteria before providing service, and they did this solely based on the clients race b/c this was essentially a controlled field study where other factors were held constant.

 

[Jarhyn]

To get an understanding of what effect agent actions and prejudices and preferences actually have on the segregation of neighbourhoods.

People have prejudices (though they're not necessarily "racist" - which used to mean discrimination against somebody to their detriment because you believe your own race is superior, and now means god knows what). These prejudices might be "people want to live in neighbourhoods that is composed of as many people of their own race/ethnicity as possible". But, if somebody does not have the infrastructure to enact their prejudices, their prejudices don't matter.

It is extremely realistic to enlist an agent to help you find properties, especially in markets (Long Island among them) where there is high competition among buyers and if you don't have an agent, you won't know about new listings until they are already gone.

Also, these agents did cause harm to the clients via full-fledged racism. They didn't merely direct clients to race-similar neighborhoods, they outright refused to provide service for some clients or required that they meet higher criteria before providing service, and they did this solely based on the clients race b/c this was essentially a controlled field study where other factors were held constant.

And many more refused to provide THE SAME service on those same lines.

Treating people differently who only differ by race is racism. It's the most fundamental core aspect of the word.

And yet some of the folks here have the chutzpa to say "not racism"!

If this isn't racism, what could possibly be? I guess to some people it just isn't racism until you say n****r

Prejudice ALWAYS matters because opportunity to act on it is a function of time. People will always, eventually, get an opportunity to act on prejudice.