5 ms·
While I typically would support a tech company, and this is not to say that I'm not pro-technology and want smarter legislation to keep track with technology ad
by wcarron 10y ago
While I typically would support a tech company, and this is not to say that I'm not pro-technology and want smarter legislation to keep track with technology advances, the opposition does have some good points.
Having only recently become able to afford my own apartment, it appears to me that this legislation is, at its core, designed for the purpose of renter protection. Housing prices are literally insane in metropolitan areas across America. (LA here). Illegal sublets are already endemic, and were I to own property, or even have a year long lease, the ROI from AirBnBs/subletting would definitely be enticing. I won't assert I'm a moral paragon, but there are many landlords less scrupulous than I am.
The problem is that, with AirBnB and sublets come ever increasing rent, eventually pricing huge numbers of people out, which drives down productivity and growth. Uninhibited illegal sublets/hotels create a weird bubble at the very bottom of the housing market, which serves to exert upward pressure on prices across the board, since if one room is now worth $800-$1000/month, a studio apt jumps from $1100 to $1300, and so on and so forth.
- twblalock 10y ago> The problem is that, with AirBnB and sublets come ever increasing rent, eventually pricing huge numbers of people out, which drives down productivity and growth. AirBnB aside, the cities with the highest housing prices, and the highest recent increases in housing prices, also have the highest economic growth by far. In theory, people like service workers will be driven out, the local economy will suffer, yadda yadda yadda. In practice, that has never happened. In San Francisco area, for example, rents have more than doubled in the past five years, the economy has boomed, thousands of new jobs were created, and there are still enough service workers, restaurant workers, municipal employees, etc. to do the jobs that need to be done. If you look at the most expensive cities worldwide, e.g. London, Paris, Moscow, Tokyo, etc., you will find similar situations. If you want to argue for affordable housing on the basis that it is a social good, that's fine. But there is no evidence that high housing prices have driven down productivity and growth.
- steveax 10y agoExcept those service workers probably now have significantly longer commutes. Their quality of life suffers. I don't know how broadly your definition of service workers goes, but this affects teachers, police officers, firefighters, etc.
- twblalock 10y agoThat's not relevant to the arguments about economic growth, because clearly the places this happens are growing very fast in spite of this. This is one of the "affordable housing is a social good" arguments. That's fine, but it's not the kind of argument I was responding to.
- ahoy 10y agoI don't think the parent poster would disagree with you. What they're saying is that the decreased quality of life for service industry workers hasn't lead to a negative effect on the economy. I'm with you that it's a bad thing.
- davidw 10y agoGrowing at 10% instead of 20% is still "a negative effect". "That which is not seen" and all that...
- davidw 10y ago> But there is no evidence that high housing prices have driven down productivity and growth. Well, only if you don't look at, say, the field of economics: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/06/nimbyism-is-a-huge-drag-on-americas-economic-growth/394925/ http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/06/nimbyism-is-a-huge-dr... The loss is not to the area. It's to the people who could have gone there, but can't due to housing prices.
- twblalock 10y ago> The loss is not to the area. It's to the people who could have gone there, but can't due to housing prices. Since we are talking about the productivity and economic growth of the area, rather than the salaries and quality of life of people who aren't in the area, how is this relevant?
- davidw 10y agoThose people would be in the area.
- cbhl 10y ago> In San Francisco area, for example, rents have more than doubled in the past five years, [...] and there are still enough service workers, restaurant workers, municipal employees, etc. No, no there are not. School districts in SF and Oakland are short dozens of teachers -- imagine having sixty classrooms on the first day of school where there is no teacher. (e.g. http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Bay-Area-school-districts-scramble-amid-teacher-6446569.php http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Bay-Area-school-dist... from last year)
- omegaworks 10y agoIt's funny I hear people complain why we have a dwindling number of 24-hour restaurants. The BART closes at midnight. :)
- notyourwork 10y agoI see your point but I don't think we have enough data to conclude. SF rents have drastically changed in the last handful of years. Service workers still show up but by forcing them to either pay more for rent in city or forcing them out of the city to cheaper residence their quality of life decreases. Less time with family or less money for family, pick your poison. This is the problem with those service workers in this context. Someone will always fill the gap though so I suppose my argument doesn't hold much either. If enough service workers leave big cities for cheaper living and shorter commutes these heavily populated areas will have to start paying more to incentivize people to work in downtown areas. So essentially its a supply and demand problem like any other. Perhaps there is no argument here at all and it just sucks for some people who are less financially well off.