Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-31-2013, 01:08 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,326,217 times
Reputation: 9074

Advertisements

Housing Discrimination Against People Who Are Single: 4 Studies



In the first study, the choices were a married couple, a single woman, and a single man. If there were no bias, each would have been selected 33% of the time. Here are the actual results:

Study 1
70% married couple
18% single woman
12% single man


The married couple was favored overwhelmingly. (This result and all the others I will describe are statistically significant.)


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ngle-4-studies

(various combinations of hypothetical people were tested, with a hypothetical married couple being overwhelmingly preferred to almost all other hypothetical possibilities tested, e.g. single woman, single man, cohabiting couple, etc, read for specifics)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2013, 01:11 AM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,889,350 times
Reputation: 1578
I don't blame the landlords... Married people are less likely to bring crime and less likely to damage property. Also, they are usually more responsible managing their funds.

Whether it's true or not, IDK. But I could believe it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 01:15 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,326,217 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
I don't blame the landlords... Married people are less likely to bring crime and less likely to damage property. Also, they are usually more responsible managing their funds.

Whether it's true or not, IDK. But I could believe it.

Single parents are more likely to being crime e.g. through kids in tow (gangbangers-in-training) and lowlife boyfriends/baby daddies) but it's illegal to discriminate against them...and perfectly okay to discriminate against singles.

Question, should singles just accept the higher costs of housing or should they have protection from discrimination like parents do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 01:24 AM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,889,350 times
Reputation: 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Single parents are more likely to being crime e.g. through kids in tow (gangbangers-in-training) and lowlife boyfriends/baby daddies) but it's illegal to discriminate against them...and perfectly okay to discriminate against singles.

Question, should singles just accept the higher costs of housing or should they have protection from discrimination like parents do?
Whenever you start dealing with discrimination protection it's a risky proposition. And it can have some serious negative consequences..sometimes unintended.

for example, many landlords who accept section 8 will turn down applicants who need housing because they prefer the government check because they know it will be there on the day, every month like clockwork.

And at the end of the day, it's private property. One should allow and deny whoever they want to inhabit their dwelling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 01:26 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,326,217 times
Reputation: 9074
An abstract is provided here:

Providing the first empirical evidence of discrimination against singles, participants in multiple experiments favored married couples over various types of singles and failed to recognize such differential treatment as discrimination. In four experiments, undergraduates and rental agents read descriptions of multiple applicants for a rental property and chose one. The applicant pool, varying across experiments, included a married couple and different types of singles. Alt. hough the applicants were similar on substantive dimensions, participants consistently chose the married couple over the singles and explicitly stated that the applicants' marital status influenced their choice. In Experiment 5, participants read examples of housing discrimination against singles and other more recognized stigmatized groups. Participants rated discrimination against singles as more legitimate than discrimination against virtually all of the other groups.

No Shelter for Singles: The Perceived Legitimacy of Marital Status Discrimination

Last edited by freemkt; 07-31-2013 at 01:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 01:32 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,326,217 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
Whenever you start dealing with discrimination protection it's a risky proposition. And it can have some serious negative consequences..sometimes unintended.

for example, many landlords who accept section 8 will turn down applicants who need housing because they prefer the government check because they know it will be there on the day, every month like clockwork.

And at the end of the day, it's private property. One should allow and deny whoever they want to inhabit their dwelling.

I agree, but that's not how it works. Landlords who discriminate against families with children can get in trouble in many areas (theoretically they can get in trouble anywhere in this country but enforcement varies by location).

So what we have now is a tilted playing field where families get the protection of landlord bias and, for those landlords who might have other preferences...the protection of federal (and often state) law.

Discrimination should be allowed in both directions or in neither direction, but never in only one direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 02:57 AM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,845,140 times
Reputation: 1516
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Single parents are more likely to being crime e.g. through kids in tow (gangbangers-in-training) and lowlife boyfriends/baby daddies) but it's illegal to discriminate against them...and perfectly okay to discriminate against singles.
No it's not.

It's illegal to discriminate based on familial status. Single is included.

Personally I think that should be scrapped but hey.

EDIT - Nevermind, I was wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 06:51 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,222,866 times
Reputation: 3826
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow View Post

It's illegal to discriminate based on familial status. Single is included.
Bzzzt. State by state. My single friend in NC was muscled out of several renting opportunities in favor of married couples and the law clearly states that unless you are a single parent, you have no right to (successfully) sue.

Family status is not a federally protected class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 07:02 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,222,866 times
Reputation: 3826
There will always be a market for singles. Even as a social conservative (not policywise, just personally), I rented a room in my house out to not only a single male, but a gay single male. He also brought over his boyfriend from time to time. Personally, I could care less as he kept to himself, was gainfully employed part-time and going to school full-time, and paid on time every time. I would rather have someone like that than a family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 08:54 AM
 
4,130 posts, read 4,447,012 times
Reputation: 3041
I thought the government forcing people to do things, like think of married and single people equally, was against the person who rents its liberty. You want on a big tear how liberty is paramount over the government forcing you do stuff here...or is it that renters are human and people that rent their homes, or manage properties, are something entirely different?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top