3 ms·

Do you have evidence of Airbnb driving up pricing levels? I'd honestly love to see it if so.

by sama 11y ago

flyinglizard 11y ago
Both of us look at the same evidence, just interpreted differently. If the stats you brought are correct, that means that there exist a considerable amount of tenants which couldn't afford their apartments if not for Airbnb. Ultimately, as rental markets balance their price against vacancies, market rates will go up.
ChicagoBoy11 11y ago
Is it necessary? Isn't it impossible for AirBnB not to either drive up price levels or drive down availability? If you have a property, AirBnB immediately makes it more valuable, as it is now possible to generate a (reasonably) passive income from it - you can use it more efficiently than before. If you own a home or rent. What economics are you using in which it doesn't immediately follow that this would eventually reflect in the rental/purchase price of housing units? Ahh "rent control and regs" you say! Ok fine, then the market tries to reach its equilibrium on quantity and fewer units are available. AirBnB makes housing more valuable, and if there is any vestige of market forces in SF housing, its effect on price/supply is unambiguous. This DOES NOT, however, mean that AirBnB is a bad thing. I firmly believe it is an incredibly beneficial thing for everyone and it boggles my mind how people can be so against a service whose only function is to allow us to use our resources more efficiently. If this energy were instead spent on analyzing all the distortions that our wonderful political system has introduced in the system, we'd be much better off.
balls187 11y ago
It's a reasonable conclusion to draw, given your claim that people are able to "make rent" using AirBNB. Without AirBNB, people would have to find alternate ways to do so, and if they couldn't would likely not be able to continue to live in their selected housing. That reduces demand on apartments (as people can no longer make money).
swagv 11y ago
When two income families arose, San Francisco ultimately required two incomes to buy into a house. Now we will be creating a necessity in that only those who operate private hoteling will be able to afford to buy in the city anymore. Those who don't operate an AirBnB business in their homes will be economically priced out as a disadvantage to those who do. This means that residency in SF will ultimately require it ... and that entire neighborhoods will ultimately be transformed to be dominated by private hoteliers. Squeezing out the poor sap who doesn't optimize reselling each unused square foot of their home.

Do you have evidence of Airbnb driving up pricing levels? I'd honestly love to see it if so.

by sama 11y ago

Do you have evidence of Airbnb driving up pricing levels? I'd honestly love to see it if so.

Both of us look at the same evidence, just interpreted differently. If the stats you brought are correct, that means that there exist a considerable amount of tenants which couldn't afford their apartments if not for Airbnb. Ultimately, as rental markets balance their price against vacancies, market rates will go up.

ChicagoBoy11 11y ago

Is it necessary? Isn't it impossible for AirBnB not to either drive up price levels or drive down availability? If you have a property, AirBnB immediately makes it more valuable, as it is now possible to generate a (reasonably) passive income from it - you can use it more efficiently than before. If you own a home or rent. What economics are you using in which it doesn't immediately follow that this would eventually reflect in the rental/purchase price of housing units? Ahh "rent control and regs" you say! Ok fine, then the market tries to reach its equilibrium on quantity and fewer units are available. AirBnB makes housing more valuable, and if there is any vestige of market forces in SF housing, its effect on price/supply is unambiguous. This DOES NOT, however, mean that AirBnB is a bad thing. I firmly believe it is an incredibly beneficial thing for everyone and it boggles my mind how people can be so against a service whose only function is to allow us to use our resources more efficiently. If this energy were instead spent on analyzing all the distortions that our wonderful political system has introduced in the system, we'd be much better off.

balls187 11y ago

It's a reasonable conclusion to draw, given your claim that people are able to "make rent" using AirBNB. Without AirBNB, people would have to find alternate ways to do so, and if they couldn't would likely not be able to continue to live in their selected housing. That reduces demand on apartments (as people can no longer make money).

swagv 11y ago

When two income families arose, San Francisco ultimately required two incomes to buy into a house. Now we will be creating a necessity in that only those who operate private hoteling will be able to afford to buy in the city anymore. Those who don't operate an AirBnB business in their homes will be economically priced out as a disadvantage to those who do. This means that residency in SF will ultimately require it ... and that entire neighborhoods will ultimately be transformed to be dominated by private hoteliers. Squeezing out the poor sap who doesn't optimize reselling each unused square foot of their home.