This isn't strictly true. Historically many do, but increasingly many don't. It's been changing. Whether you pay for your own representation is also an entirely separate question.
As someone else in this thread noted, the landlord often hires an agent because they don't want to deal with the tidal wave of crap that comes from dealing with applicants. That person gets paid, obviously, and the landlord isn't the one paying them. That's the rate you're talking about here. These people are not incentivized to provide good service to the renter, and typically don't. They suck.
Higher-end buildings often have in-house agents (again: you're paying for this, whether you realize it or not), and these are called "no fee" buildings. But an increasing number of places don't have either, and just provide access to professional renter's agents instead of listing publicly. Or they do list publicly, and barely respond to the tidal wave of yahoos, knowing that motivated renters hire an agent. YMMV.
As someone else in this thread noted, the landlord often hires an agent because they don't want to deal with the tidal wave of crap that comes from dealing with applicants. That person gets paid, obviously, and the landlord isn't the one paying them. That's the rate you're talking about here. These people are not incentivized to provide good service to the renter, and typically don't. They suck.
Higher-end buildings often have in-house agents (again: you're paying for this, whether you realize it or not), and these are called "no fee" buildings. But an increasing number of places don't have either, and just provide access to professional renter's agents instead of listing publicly. Or they do list publicly, and barely respond to the tidal wave of yahoos, knowing that motivated renters hire an agent. YMMV.