3 ms·

I don't think that you can actually call increasing property prices a negative externality. It's a natural consequence of making that tourism more efficient. It

I don't think that you can actually call increasing property prices a negative externality. It's a natural consequence of making that tourism more efficient. It's like someone invented a way to turn fruit into gold and you're complaining that it drives the price of fruit up. Well, OK that has some bad effects but they're almost by definition (like, how economics works) less than the positive effects of now having more gold.

wpietri 9y ago
That is very much a rich person's answer. It's certainly "more efficient" for the wealthy if they can drive poorer people from their homes when the rich find it convenient. But that's not what it feels like if you're on the other end of it.
- chii 9y ago
  if the demand for property in an area grows, the poor is going to get priced out no matter what. Whether it's airbnb doing it, or some other factor (like tech investment money or something to such an effect). The problem to solve isn't to stop airbnb from working, but to increase the opportunity for the poor to get out of poverty. Otherwise, the next airbnb-like disruption will cause the exact same problem for the poor.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    There's no reason we can't do both.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    What? If people who are currently housing-insecure started making more money, rents would rise accordingly. There are always going to be people who can't afford to live somewhere (particularly major world cities attractive to tourists) and just above them, there are always going to be people barely afford to live somewhere. We can and should lift the currently housing-insecure to comfortable homeownership, but just as many housing-insecure people will rise from the previously totally-priced-out to take their place.
jtolmar 9y ago
That only works if everyone has equal bargaining power. In the fruit-gold machine world, sure the price of gold tanks, but as long as there are people willing to pay more for gold than others are able to pay for fruit, the poor can't eat fruit anymore. That's bad for them. The free market doesn't do what's best for everyone, it weighs people by their ability to pay.

wpietri 9y ago

That is very much a rich person's answer. It's certainly "more efficient" for the wealthy if they can drive poorer people from their homes when the rich find it convenient. But that's not what it feels like if you're on the other end of it.

chii 9y ago
if the demand for property in an area grows, the poor is going to get priced out no matter what. Whether it's airbnb doing it, or some other factor (like tech investment money or something to such an effect). The problem to solve isn't to stop airbnb from working, but to increase the opportunity for the poor to get out of poverty. Otherwise, the next airbnb-like disruption will cause the exact same problem for the poor.
- wpietri 9y ago
  There's no reason we can't do both.
- closeparen 9y ago
  What? If people who are currently housing-insecure started making more money, rents would rise accordingly. There are always going to be people who can't afford to live somewhere (particularly major world cities attractive to tourists) and just above them, there are always going to be people barely afford to live somewhere. We can and should lift the currently housing-insecure to comfortable homeownership, but just as many housing-insecure people will rise from the previously totally-priced-out to take their place.

jtolmar 9y ago

That only works if everyone has equal bargaining power. In the fruit-gold machine world, sure the price of gold tanks, but as long as there are people willing to pay more for gold than others are able to pay for fruit, the poor can't eat fruit anymore. That's bad for them. The free market doesn't do what's best for everyone, it weighs people by their ability to pay.