5 ms·

How empirically adequate is the claim implicit in your criticism that Airbnb is primarily used by the rich? Au contraire, Airbnb is primarily used by the young

by mafribe 10y ago

How empirically adequate is the claim implicit in your criticism that Airbnb is primarily used by the rich? Au contraire, Airbnb is primarily used by the young and (comparatively poor), students and young adults. The kind of person who comes to Berlin, Praha and Barcelona by Ryanair and Easyjet. It is precisely the low-cost nature of Airbnb that has made it so popular: in order to save money you can fit multiple people into a small Airbnb if you really want, you cannot easily do that with a hotel. The wealthy (usually older) stay in posh hotels. Airbnb, like low-cost airlines, has made travelling to major cities more affordable to the masses. * * * A more general point: I don't see why having zones dedicated to short-term lodging and entertainment on one hand, and zones for long-term lodging is necessarily a bad thing. Such zones allows for more specialisation, hence better offerings for either. E.g. dwellings suitable for short-term dwelling probably have somewhat different characteristics than dwellings suitable for long-term dwelling. Another example, nightlife comes with noise pollution, so nightlife isn't really all ideal in residental areas (and typically subject to severe legal restriction). Restricting nightlife to small zones with a dense stocking of nightlife is one way of getting around this problem. Moreover, the entertainment value of a city increases dramatically with increasing tourism, and that's good for long-term inhabitants too. I would like to up the ante: great party zones is one of the key things that make cities livable.

timthelion 10y ago
In the US, the question of whether the "center" of the city is a tourist trap or a place where people live is irrelavent. Everyone goes everywhere by car, and the real center can move. However, in Europe, where we have REAL infrustructure, train stations, subways, tram lines. And we, the citizens, have invested TWO CENTURIES of tax money to build that incredible infrustructure, taking that center and saying "this part of the city is going to be too expensive for normal people to live there, is nothing short of theft. Normal people paid, with real money, taken out of their sallaries, which they earned with real work in order to build that subway system that they can no longer effectively use, because they live on the outskirts now. So any new zoning has to take that into account. As for who is rich. Young, healthy, students who can afford to take time off and travel ARE RICH! You can say what you want about Ryan air being cheep and only €50 a flight. But the minimum wage in the Czech Republic is 11 000CZK or just €400 a month! Poor people have trouble paying for rent, and there is no chance they will be taking time off to take that ryan air flight to Brussels to spend the weekend in an AirBNB. And those people don't benefit from AirBNB at all, given that they have no assets to invest in real estate.
- mafribe 10y ago
  this part of the city is going to be too expensive for normal people to live there, is nothing short of theft. I'd recommend not using terms like "theft" here, as it is factually inaccurate, and goes back to the unfortunate tradition of Leninist agitation which gave the world Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot ... and despite all the violence, didn't even manage to produce housing of a quality that came close to anything the modern western democracies had to offer to their masses. And in case of the Soviet Union didn't even manage to feed its own population. Anyway, let me remind you that I don't believe your claim that Airbnb has a substantial influence on property prices. As far as I can see, the dominant factor in property prices is distance from center, and proximity to amenities, in particular public transport -- all that regardless of Airbnb. because they live on the outskirts The main purpose of public transport is to enable those living in the outskirts to get to the center in the morning, and go back in the evening. The drive to separate out work from living quarters goes back to the industrial revolution when work suddenly became noisy, dangerous and polluting, so the old model (working and living in the same place) had to go. This required mass transport, be it cars or public transport Anyway, there is nothing wrong with living in the outskirts. Many prefer it, especially those with children. There is no human right to live in Manhattan or in Mayfair or in Charlottenburg in a 150 m^2 loft that costs only €200 per month. That would be an extremely inefficient use of dense urban space. Second, tourists use public transport more than the normal population, because the latter spends most of their day working, while tourists explore and move around. If you are interested in the utilisation of public transport, attracting more tourism is a god-sent. Note also that increased tourism generates additional local employment, because tourists spend quite a bit of money. students who can afford to take time off and travel ARE RICH! This is deeply misleading. In any given country, students are near the bottom in terms of average spending power, and that's because they typically live on their parents money and / or government grants. Their peers who dropped out of school at 16 and learned a trade (e.g. welding or carpentry or plumbing) will out-earn the average student at that age (a few years after graduation this will change). Note also that in most western countries, nowadays the majority of the population goes to university (for some definition of university). Another way of seeing that students are essentially at the bottom of each society in terms of spending power is to look how they live (eg. sharing), and to look at the population's average income trajectory: just about anyone's overall available income increases considerably after graduation. Of course you can compare the average student in Denmark with the average worker in Malawi, and find that the former is wealthy vis-a-vis the latter, but this is not an interesting comparison. Czech Republic is 11 000CZK Yes, and why is this interesting? The minimum wage in Malawi is ... what $1 per year? The cost of accomodation always correlates strongly with the average income Poor people have trouble paying for rent Not in a meaningful sense in the western world. For essentially everybody by the richest, say for 98% of the population, rent/mortgage is the single biggest cost they have in life. The average person spends between 25% and 50% of their income (after taxes) on accomodation. This feels painful for everybody, but is managable in practise. Another way of looking at this is to see who is homeless, and why. In practise in Wester Europe, there is little/no homelessness apart from those with serious drugs problems and / or mental illness. This is a pretty strong indication that housing is affordable for everybody. Yes, it would be better if there was no homelessness, but the problem is one of drug-addition and mental illness, and that's something that as of 2017 we don't really know how to solve. And those people don't benefit from AirBNB They benefit in several ways: I already mentioned the economic boost that cities get from additional tourism. But they also benefit from the economies of scale that you get from streamlined tourism, like cheaper flights, cheaper holidays, more interesting cities. Easier travelling because large companies like Airbnb can develop apps that make booking easier.

by mafribe 10y ago

timthelion 10y ago

In the US, the question of whether the "center" of the city is a tourist trap or a place where people live is irrelavent. Everyone goes everywhere by car, and the real center can move. However, in Europe, where we have REAL infrustructure, train stations, subways, tram lines. And we, the citizens, have invested TWO CENTURIES of tax money to build that incredible infrustructure, taking that center and saying "this part of the city is going to be too expensive for normal people to live there, is nothing short of theft. Normal people paid, with real money, taken out of their sallaries, which they earned with real work in order to build that subway system that they can no longer effectively use, because they live on the outskirts now. So any new zoning has to take that into account. As for who is rich. Young, healthy, students who can afford to take time off and travel ARE RICH! You can say what you want about Ryan air being cheep and only €50 a flight. But the minimum wage in the Czech Republic is 11 000CZK or just €400 a month! Poor people have trouble paying for rent, and there is no chance they will be taking time off to take that ryan air flight to Brussels to spend the weekend in an AirBNB. And those people don't benefit from AirBNB at all, given that they have no assets to invest in real estate.

mafribe 10y ago
this part of the city is going to be too expensive for normal people to live there, is nothing short of theft. I'd recommend not using terms like "theft" here, as it is factually inaccurate, and goes back to the unfortunate tradition of Leninist agitation which gave the world Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot ... and despite all the violence, didn't even manage to produce housing of a quality that came close to anything the modern western democracies had to offer to their masses. And in case of the Soviet Union didn't even manage to feed its own population. Anyway, let me remind you that I don't believe your claim that Airbnb has a substantial influence on property prices. As far as I can see, the dominant factor in property prices is distance from center, and proximity to amenities, in particular public transport -- all that regardless of Airbnb. because they live on the outskirts The main purpose of public transport is to enable those living in the outskirts to get to the center in the morning, and go back in the evening. The drive to separate out work from living quarters goes back to the industrial revolution when work suddenly became noisy, dangerous and polluting, so the old model (working and living in the same place) had to go. This required mass transport, be it cars or public transport Anyway, there is nothing wrong with living in the outskirts. Many prefer it, especially those with children. There is no human right to live in Manhattan or in Mayfair or in Charlottenburg in a 150 m^2 loft that costs only €200 per month. That would be an extremely inefficient use of dense urban space. Second, tourists use public transport more than the normal population, because the latter spends most of their day working, while tourists explore and move around. If you are interested in the utilisation of public transport, attracting more tourism is a god-sent. Note also that increased tourism generates additional local employment, because tourists spend quite a bit of money. students who can afford to take time off and travel ARE RICH! This is deeply misleading. In any given country, students are near the bottom in terms of average spending power, and that's because they typically live on their parents money and / or government grants. Their peers who dropped out of school at 16 and learned a trade (e.g. welding or carpentry or plumbing) will out-earn the average student at that age (a few years after graduation this will change). Note also that in most western countries, nowadays the majority of the population goes to university (for some definition of university). Another way of seeing that students are essentially at the bottom of each society in terms of spending power is to look how they live (eg. sharing), and to look at the population's average income trajectory: just about anyone's overall available income increases considerably after graduation. Of course you can compare the average student in Denmark with the average worker in Malawi, and find that the former is wealthy vis-a-vis the latter, but this is not an interesting comparison. Czech Republic is 11 000CZK Yes, and why is this interesting? The minimum wage in Malawi is ... what $1 per year? The cost of accomodation always correlates strongly with the average income Poor people have trouble paying for rent Not in a meaningful sense in the western world. For essentially everybody by the richest, say for 98% of the population, rent/mortgage is the single biggest cost they have in life. The average person spends between 25% and 50% of their income (after taxes) on accomodation. This feels painful for everybody, but is managable in practise. Another way of looking at this is to see who is homeless, and why. In practise in Wester Europe, there is little/no homelessness apart from those with serious drugs problems and / or mental illness. This is a pretty strong indication that housing is affordable for everybody. Yes, it would be better if there was no homelessness, but the problem is one of drug-addition and mental illness, and that's something that as of 2017 we don't really know how to solve. And those people don't benefit from AirBNB They benefit in several ways: I already mentioned the economic boost that cities get from additional tourism. But they also benefit from the economies of scale that you get from streamlined tourism, like cheaper flights, cheaper holidays, more interesting cities. Easier travelling because large companies like Airbnb can develop apps that make booking easier.