chatmasta is talking about the _buyer's_ agent. In the US real estate market, the buyer's agent is typically paid a percentage of the sale price. So the buyer's agent has an incentive to convince the buyer to pay a higher price. They of course also have an incentive to convince the buyer to buy quickly, for the reason you said.
Oh, also the _seller_ is typically the party that actually pays the buyer's agent. Yes, this is pretty messed up.
When I was buying my house, I considered not using a buyer's agent because the condo seller said that they could handle both ends of the deal and save me some money. I thought about it and read more into it and eventually decided against that because a buyer's agent is legally required to represent your best interests as the buyer whereas the seller is representing the other party. Buyer's agents are required to disclose any information that they come into that may help you in negotiation. Luckily, I found a good agent from a referral and since I found my place myself I was charged half the commission.
> I...decided against that because a buyer's agent is legally required to represent your best interests as the buyer whereas the seller is representing the other party
This actually depends on if your state's regulations permit dual agency or not; some states, e.g. Massachusetts, permit one agent to represent both parties. Other states, like Florida, forbid it due to the potential conflict of interest.
Either way, though, avoiding dual agency is probably a good call. It's fraught with potential problems, and even if the agent cuts perfectly square corners, the quality of representation will still suffer since the agent must keep both parties in mind at all times.
Oh, also the _seller_ is typically the party that actually pays the buyer's agent. Yes, this is pretty messed up.