
Thanks to Zillow, Your Friends Know How Much Your House Costs—or if You're Secretly Rich
'It became a kind of controversial thing that people were talking about,' says Kornman, 25. While some found it endlessly entertaining to dive into the finances of a student body where almost one in five students come from families in the top 1 percent, the popular pastime struck a nerve with a particular crowd.
'People would always frame it as, 'Well, you shouldn't do that, because some people are embarrassed about where they live.'' But she found out that one of the main crusaders against the resource was a student who grew up in a multimillion-dollar home in SoHo, Manhattan. And another student who, she says, was 'outwardly saying that they were broke and they grew up in poverty' was just one Zillow search away from being found out. 'Someone was like, 'Bro, go on the directory. They live in a brownstone, a five-story brownstone.''
'I think it's definitely more taboo the more money you have,' Kornman says. 'You're all on the same page when you're in college. And so to differentiate each other, especially if someone's going out of their way to maybe obscure some of the facts of their life, it gives you good perspective.'
Zillow, the hugely popular and addictive real-estate platform launched in 2006, has gone from simply a tool to buy and sell homes to a full-fledged phenomenon. It's used by 227 million unique visitors every month and had 2.4 billion visits in just the first quarter of 2025. (The company has such a vice-grip on real estate listings, it was recently sued by Compass for its alleged attempted monopoly on online home listings.) Turns out, it owes its mass appeal, in part, to nosy people looking to satisfy their undying curiosity about their peers' financial lives.
When you look up an address on Zillow, a Zestimate—Zillow's estimate of a given property's current value—appears below photos of the property. It's calculated using 'millions of data points' including public records, MLS (multiple listing service) feeds, tax assessments, recent sales, and updates provided directly from homeowners, according to Claire Carroll, a spokesperson for Zillow. Carroll says the estimates are fairly accurate, with a median error rate nationwide of just under 2 percent for on-market homes and 7 percent for off-market homes. The price history, which includes dates of past sales with corresponding prices, is sourced through public property records, county tax assessors, and local MLS. Zillow also provides an estimation of monthly rent for rental units.
Zillow does not give users the option to hide their home's Zestimate and price history. 'Open access to this kind of public information is a really important part of a fair housing market,' says Amanda Pendleton, Zillow's home trends expert. But while not everyone is thrilled with having the value and cost of their home on full display for anyone who's curious, others take full advantage of the publicity of this information by actively searching for the details of their friends' housing costs—and some are extrapolating Zillow's figures to get a fuller picture of their friends' financial situations.
Like Kornman, Gillian Williams, 27, took up this pastime in college, using a database provided by her school, the University of Delaware. 'I looked up everyone I knew,' she says.
'It was just interesting to be like, 'Oh my gosh, I didn't know you're from—your parents own a multimillion dollar house in the Hamptons,'' she says.
Now, as a resident of the notoriously expensive city of Washington, DC, she continues to use the platform as a means of gaining insight into her peers' financial lives—specifically to answer the question of how they get by considering the city's high cost of living.
'Years ago I went over to a new friend's apartment, and immediately on my walk home I was looking up how much she probably paid and then doing a little bit of math to be like, 'Well, if you're paying that much money for rent, what is your salary?'' Williams says. She says she based her calculation on the widely accepted idea that people should spend a maximum of 30 percent of their monthly income on housing.
Salary is just one of the insights she's gained through extrapolating data from Zillow. 'It's kind of an easy way to find out if their family is helping them pay,' she says. And after discovering how much a friend paid in rent, she asked how they manage to pay their bills and learned that they were struggling with significant credit card debt. 'I didn't realize that probably more of my friends than I think are in credit card debt specifically, not just student loans but credit card debt, because they're trying to make ends meet, or they're living outside of their means to meet a lifestyle that they want or they expect.'
Vivian Tu, a financial literacy content creator and author known as @yourrichbff on TikTok and Instagram, says young people today are particularly susceptible to spending outside of their budget. 'I think a huge part of that is the comparison game. Back in our parents' generation, we had 'keeping up with the Joneses,'' she says. 'For the most part you were looking at your neighbors, and those are people who were relatively within the same tax bracket.'
Social media, she says, has replaced the Joneses with the Kardashians. 'All of a sudden you're not comparing yourself to people who are relatively your net-worth equal. You're comparing yourself to everybody on Earth, and you are starting to see levels of insurmountable wealth, like unimaginable wealth, that the vast majority of us will never ever obtain,' says Tu.
This, combined with a lack of mandated financial education and the fact that many young adults feel disenfranchised by the US's economic system, can make the pursuit of wealth feel like a nonstarter. 'Instead of trying to be rich, be wealthier, be financially stable, we're trying to look rich, look wealthy, look financially stable,' she says. 'That means you drive a nice car, it means you live in a nice apartment. It means you have nice things to wear, and you're always in a cute new outfit on Instagram.'
The phenomenon of Zillow snooping also feels in line with the current political climate. Today's young adults came of age in a moment marked by a growing backlash towards income inequality and an unfettered class of billionaires, a sentiment reflected in the popularity of shows like Succession and The White Lotus . Zillow's public pricing details give people who want to gawk at or mock the rich an opportunity to do just that within their inner circles.
'You try to be pretty objective about it, but I think it inevitably ends up seeping into your perception of someone,' Williams says.
Anna Goldfarb, author of Modern Friendship , says these discoveries can lead people to make assumptions and judgments about their friends' priorities. 'It's really not about money,' Goldfarb, says. 'It's the values around money where it can get prickly with friends.'
'One of the biggest reasons friendships fade is the difference in values. So there's a real risk here of looking deeply into finances, because you're sort of putting your friendship on the line, like, 'Do we share values?' It's not that explicit, but it's definitely implied that, well, if you know your friend is in debt and makes terrible financial choices, and then you look up her home on Zillow, you're going to make all sorts of judgments about that,' Goldfarb says.
But knowing that a friend appears to be doing well because they're getting a lot of help can also ease people's insecurities rather than just stoke them.
Lucia Barker, 25, describes her inclination to look up her friends' apartments as 'a morbid curiosity' but says the habit has quelled her tendency to compare her own financial situation to those of her peers, particularly when it becomes clear a friend's standard of living is made possible through factors other than their salary—namely, money from their parents. New York Magazine recently reported that nearly half of parents in the US provide financial support to their adult children and that, among American adults under 43, only about one-third support themselves without help from their parents. But despite the fact that parent-subsidized lifestyles have become commonplace, a sense of shame and secrecy surrounding generational wealth persists. 'There's such a lack of financial transparency in our world,' Barker says. 'It's just helpful to know that other people's lifestyles might be because of some other reason.'
Financial therapist Aja Evans says that since money remains a cultural taboo, people should take their Zillow findings with a grain of salt. 'You have no idea if they pulled all of their money from all of their retirement accounts, if somebody helped them, if they borrowed money from a friend or somebody else and then planned on paying them back. There are so many different scenarios,' says Evans. 'We don't actually have a clear financial picture of how they were able to make that happen.'
But sometimes the information comes up by happenstance. Those looking for photos of a friend's new house, for example, are often met with far more information than they asked for. 'I love shows like House Hunter and anything on HGTV,' says Andrea Zlotowitz, 35. 'So when a friend says, 'I bought this house, here's the address,' to be able to see the pictures of the home that they purchased is my first interest,' she says. But regardless of her intentions, she inevitably stumbles upon details of her friend's financial standing. 'I see what they paid for it, and I can see the full price history.'
Most of the people I spoke to agreed: Although many are aware of the availability of this information, it's generally still taboo to ask someone directly how much their home costs or to bring up the fact that you've sought out the answer.
'I recognize that there are some sensitivities talking about money and knowing what people spend on things,' says Zlotowitz. 'So it's certainly not something that I would later bring up to a friend, but it lives rent-free in the back of my mind.'
Regardless, some think this behavior is within the bounds of the new social contract brought on by the information age: I can learn anything I want about you, and you can learn anything you want about me—we just won't talk about it. One person even likened it to vetting people before a first date.
As my sister, a homeowner and avid Zillow user, told me when I mentioned this story, "I expect that everyone who enters my home knows exactly how much I bought it for.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawmakers Press FDA to Target Knockoff Weight-Loss Drugs
(Bloomberg) -- Dozens of lawmakers are urging US health regulators to crack down on the booming market for knockoff weight-loss drugs amid mounting concerns over their potential safety risks. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Trump Administration Sues NYC Over Sanctuary City Policy On Friday, a group of more than 80 bipartisan lawmakers asked the US Food and Drug Administration to stop counterfeit and copycat versions of GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound from flooding the market — a problem that emerged over the last year. 'We are concerned about recent reports revealing a surge in illegal and counterfeit anti-obesity medications,' they wrote in a letter to FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. 'Undoubtedly, illegal counterfeit medications pose an increased risk to patient safety with sometimes fatal consequences.' The group — spearheaded by Representatives Richard Hudson of North Carolina and Herb Conaway of New Jersey — asked the agency to ramp up enforcement over illegally imported weight-loss drugs. They suggested issuing warning letters and better monitoring non-compliant online retailers and so-called compounding pharmacies that sell the medicines. The lawmakers also said the FDA should work in tandem with US Customs and Border Patrol agents to stop Chinese entities from shipping unsafe weight-loss drugs into the US. They requested an update on the FDA's efforts by July 30, given the 'urgency' of the situation. A spokesperson for the FDA said the agency will work with the US Department of Health and Human Services to provide a 'complete and thorough' response to the issues raised in the lawmakers' letter. 'Any effort to undermine America's supply of safe medicines is an issue that FDA takes seriously,' the spokesperson said. 'And we are deeply committed to strengthening the oversight of imported products at US ports of entry.' In recent years, the popularity of GLP-1 drugs has led to an explosion of copycats and counterfeits made by companies seeking to capitalize on the hype. State-licensed pharmacies were temporarily allowed to make copies of the drugs during a supply shortage, but are no longer permitted to do so after Novo Nordisk A/S and Eli Lilly & Co. boosted production. Still, some pharmacies have refused to wind down their operations while others have pivoted to selling the drugs in lower doses in order to avoid regulatory scrutiny. Counterfeit drugs are made by unregistered entities typically using illegally imported ingredients. As recently as April, there continue to be instances when counterfeit Ozempic pens covertly enter the drug supply chain undetected. Some patients are also purchasing ingredients directly from online sellers in an attempt to make the drugs themselves at home. In both cases, the medications don't go through the same rigorous approval process as brand-name drugs made by Novo and Lilly. Experts worry the lack of oversight is putting patients at risk. The FDA has said it's aware of hospitalizations potentially linked to the copycat drugs, but that adverse events are likely being underreported. 'We support the bi-partisan call for the FDA to crack down on counterfeit and illegally sold weight-loss drugs,' said a spokesperson for Hims & Hers Health Inc., one of the telehealth firms that sells compounded GLP-1s. 'We appreciate lawmakers' recognition that legitimate compounded medications dispensed by state-regulated pharmacies are not counterfeit. Patient safety must always come first.' Novo and Lilly have discouraged consumers from using compounded and counterfeit products, including suing telehealth firms that sell the copycat versions and working with border agents to seize illegal shipments. Under the Biden administration, the companies repeatedly urged the FDA to take action, but the agency mostly limited its actions to issuing consumer warnings — even as its top drug official publicly acknowledged safety concerns. Under the Trump administration, the HHS has also focused more heavily on other issues, such as banning food dyes and examining vaccine schedules. Meanwhile, lawmakers are ramping up their calls for action. State attorneys and other lawmakers have sent letters to the FDA and Federal Trade Commission advocating for greater transparency around the treatments and more scrutiny around marketing practices. (Updates with statement from FDA in sixth and seventh paragraphs.) Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash Confessions of a Laptop Farmer: How an American Helped North Korea's Wild Remote Worker Scheme It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact
'President Donald J. Trump Saves College Sports.' If only it was that simple. The 176th executive order President Trump signed in the past seven months was announced Thursday with an audaciously headlined statement from the White House. We don't know how this will play out long term. But these are the key facts surrounding the executive order and the questions that need to be answered. What's happened in college sports that brought it to the federal government? The NCAA has been under attack on numerous legal fronts for more than a decade, particularly when it comes to paying athletes. Its policy for decades was strict amateurism — any compensation athletes received beyond their scholarships would render them ineligible. The model began cracking through a series of antitrust cases brought by former athletes, most notably Alston vs. NCAA in 2021. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that schools must be allowed to provide additional academic awards. By then, states began passing legislation allowing athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness — i.e. endorsement deals — in direct opposition to the NCAA's longstanding ban. On July 1, 2021, the NCAA relented and began allowing NIL payments, which touched off another antitrust case, House v. NCAA. A class of former athletes sued for back pay for missing out on NIL opportunities. The defendants agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement, part of which allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to $20.5 million. A judge approved the settlement on June 6, 2025. But the lack of an organized NIL system has led to chaos, with boosters exploiting the lack of enforcement. And with other legal challenges forcing the NCAA to eliminate its longstanding rules about transfers, athletes now routinely hop from one school to another in search of their next payday. Desperate for regulation, college sports leaders have been lobbying Congress for help in the form of a federal law for years, but not until recently has there been any significant movement on a bill. What are the key takeaways of the executive order? The order essentially makes recommendations for how college athletic departments should operate and directs several government agencies to weigh in on issues that will shape the future of college sports. It also delivers the NCAA and conferences much of what it has been lobbying for on Capitol Hill. However, the order's ability to turn ideas into action is questionable. The order: Gives a nod to protecting women's and Olympic sports by setting benchmarks for scholarships and opportunities based on the amount of money an athletic department makes. Bans 'pay-for-play' to athletes by schools, a bedrock principle of the NCAA and college sports that leaders are still clinging to. The order does try to carve out exceptions for endorsement and sponsorship deals with third-party businesses. Calls on the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board to clarify the employment status of student-athletes. Under a Republican administration, that likely decreases the chances athletes would have the right to organize. Directs the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to find ways to hand rule-making power back to the NCAA, conferences and other college sports governing bodies and away from courts and state legislatures. Who benefits from this? Considering how much it falls in line with what college sports leaders have been asking for, it would be difficult to call it athlete-friendly. Yes, it tries to protect non-revenue programs and force schools to fund a wide-range of teams for athletes to participate in college sports, but limiting compensation by regulating NIL compensation and banning pay-for-play has been at the root of problems for decades. 'Looks like an NCAA press release,' said Marc Edelman, professor of sports law at Baruch College and antitrust expert who has been a critic of NCAA policies. Several ideas for student-athlete compensation have emerged over the years to help relegate the market, from collective bargaining agreements to defining student-athletes as university employees. Though how much athletes actually want those things is hard to say; with more than 190,000 athletes competing in Division I sports, gauging consensus is tricky. Will this actually change anything? In the short term: no. In the long term: maybe. The biggest possible downside of the executive order is it could create more uncertainty for college sports, creating policies that may or may not hold. 'It very much depends on how this gets enforced moving forward, and whether it gets enforced moving forward,' said Sam Ehrlich, assistant professor at Boise State's college of business and economics. 'Maybe this could just end up being just a statement that goes absolutely nowhere.' What can the executive order do? It's not so much what an executive order can do as what it can't. It can't make a law, it can't provide an antitrust exemption and it can't override state laws. Congress can do that. And that's what college sports needs. Any policies that come from an executive order can either be challenged in court and reversed by the next administration, which means college sports continues to operate under a blanket of uncertainty when it comes to defining the relationship between schools and athletes. That's exactly what college sports leaders are trying to stop. What power does the government have in these situations? The executive branch does not have the authority to provide straightforward solutions to college sports' problems, most importantly some form of antitrust exemption. That has to come from Congress, and right now will require bipartisan support. The president's involvement could prioritize the issues in a way that motivates lawmakers to build on recent momentum in the Republican-controlled House, where a college sports bill made it out of committee for the first time earlier this week. Or maybe pervasive political divisiveness makes Democrats recoil from the idea of giving the president a symbolic victory. While the complicated problems facing college sports now are not quite a matter of life and death, it remains to be seen if presidential involvement makes finding solutions easier or harder. What is The SCORE Act? The SCORE Act is a House bill that would provide the NCAA and conferences some antitrust protection, pre-empt state laws related to NIL compensation and bolster the terms of the House settlement. The SCORE Act made it through two Republican-led House committees on partisan lines earlier this week. No college sports bill has ever gotten so far. When Congress returns for the fall session, the bill could go to the House floor for a vote and it will probably pass. That's meaningful and a positive sign for many in college sports after years of inaction by lawmakers. The bill also has little support from Democrats in the House and stands very little chance of making it through the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to vote with Republicans to get the 60 necessary to pass. What divides Republicans and Democrats? The debate over college sports legislation on Capitol Hill is akin to a labor dispute. Republicans, who currently control both chambers and the White House, are focused on ways to shield the NCAA and college sports conferences from litigation and state laws that make it impossible for them to effectively govern national competition. Democrats are demanding greater protections for the workers (the athletes) and are hesitant to provide the antitrust protections college sports leaders have been lobbying for. The NCAA and conferences want a law that would prevent college athletes from being deemed employees. Democrats want that option left open, along with athletes' rights to organize and maybe even join unions. What precedents are there involving federal legislation and higher education in sports? The president's EO is the most significant and direct entry by the executive branch into college athletics since Teddy Roosevelt's calls for safety reforms in football led to the creation of the NCAA in 1906. Lyndon Johnson's executive order signed in 1967, led to the passage of the federal Title IX gender discrimination law, which has been credited with paving the way for an explosion of opportunities for women in college sports. What does this mean for the NCAA? The NCAA as a governing body is ceding power to conferences and the newly formed College Sports Commission. However, it played a pivotal role in lobbying for federal legislation and has been much better received by lawmakers since former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker took over as NCAA president two years ago. The NCAA's future will ultimately be determined by college sports stakeholders, not politicians. Why is the president getting involved? The White House's announcement hailed Trump's long-held interest in college athletics, including preserving Olympic and women's sports amid the changing landscape. Until now, Trump's engagement with higher education has been adversarial, threatening federal funding and litigation against schools for Title IX violations or allegations of antisemitism and discrimination through the promotion of diversity at universities. Trump came away from a meeting with former Alabama football coach Nick Saban in May motivated to get involved. The formation of a presidential commission led by Saban and billionaire oil businessman Cody Campbell, a former Texas Tech football player and current board chair, was considered then put on hold as lawmakers worked on legislative solutions. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. College Football, Men's College Basketball, Women's College Basketball, College Sports 2025 The Athletic Media Company
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
S&P 500, Nasdaq Extend Record Run as Wall Street Posts Weekly Gains
The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite gained on Friday, extending their record-setting advance during Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data