In today’s housing market, there are more things to consider than ever before. Much of it is based on the economy but an equal amount of those considerations is based on equality and inclusion. Not only is it ethically wrong to stereotype buyers, but it can also be illegal, depending on the circumstances. Let’s take a moment to rephrase that, perhaps.
Stereotyping anyone is morally wrong but there are times when your first impression is spot on. It doesn’t make it acceptable to ‘judge a book by its cover,’ but if an agent’s initial impression holds out when running credit and references, that can be the deciding factor. However, issues with equality and inclusion were only one side of a losing toss of the coin.
A Frenzied Market
In what many market analysts are calling a ‘frenzied seller’s market,’ due to the upheaval of the pandemic, a huge number of people around the world rushed into buying homes they could barely afford. Sellers were accused of price gouging because list prices were significantly higher than before the spring of 2020. This was reported in both the UK and the United States and is still making the news today.
Those who had to move due to shifts in the job market couldn’t find rental properties in areas where they were being relocated to. Much of what amounted to panic buying was the result of job loss that left renters in housing where they were because government subsidies helped cover the cost. Also, many areas wrote hasty legislation preventing landlords from evicting tenants due to pandemic-related non-payment.
The Equality Act: A New Perspective
In recent years, data analysis has become a buzz term, but to what effect? One team of GCologists have narrowed their methodology for crunching numbers. While GCology is typically employed to analyse equality and inclusion within a business framework, it can also serve to better understand the people who deal with those businesses.
GCology is all about the people, not a set of statistics that leave the human element out of a statistical analysis. With this in mind, were those homebuyers really being well served? Could a more human approach to analysing the real estate market have prevented such an extreme amount of panic buying?
Millennials and a People Approach
It makes perfect sense that Millennials would have the most to say about their homebuying regrets since the beginning of the pandemic. They are, in fact, the segment of the population at an age where they would be in the market for a home, many times as first-time home buyers. Many of their complaints have been logged as being that they paid too much money for a home that was lacking in a number of ways. Sometimes it was about repairs they should have insisted on but almost all complaints were regarding the huge price increase since just the year before.
Could a better analysis of the people who were buying homes have made it possible for agents and sellers to better screen prospective buyers? With the focus of GCology being more about people than numbers, shouldn’t agents also be held to a higher standard of business ethics? Today’s homebuyers are not mere numbers. They are people and that, in a nutshell is the basis for data analysis from a GCology perspective.