4 ms·

I'm sure that number is dwarfed by how much extra renters paid due to actions of the city (e.g. height restrictions).

by piinbinary 8y ago

bdcravens 8y ago
Which would be true regardless of AirBnB's presence, right? So the "AirBnB inflation" is still a thing.
- ribosometronome 8y ago
  As is "hotel inflation" and "car inflation" and "park inflation".
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  But what about the things that aren't true because of AirBnB's presence? Maybe prices for short term stays went down, tourism went up, and there is more tax revenue that can be used to improve the city for the renters. If we only look at one part of the picture we may miss that an overall trend is different. Is it really beneficial to talk about how many died because they were wearing a seat belt without also considering how many who lived for the same reason?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Maybe prices for short term stays went down Sure, allowing residential property to be used for short-term rental drives regular residential rents up and short-term rents down (forcing, over time, more residential proerties to be used for short-term rental to the extent possible), narrowing the gap between short-term and long-term rentals. It makes things less expensive for travellers and more expensive for non-travellers.
    - lazerpants 8y ago
      Perhaps the problem then, is that the city slaps a huge tax burden on travelers who choose to stay in hotels? Last time I stayed in a hotel in NYC, taxes were about 25% of the total cost.
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    I'm only one datapoint, but every AirBnB I've stayed in merely reduced my expenses while traveling. It didn't encourage me to change my habits while I was there. If anything, it just kept more money in my pocket for discretionary spending once I got home.
    - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
      But if it is cheaper, more people will do it. And since you still spent the same amount of taxable money, you didn't contribute to a loss. So if it is cheaper, how many more will travel?

I'm sure that number is dwarfed by how much extra renters paid due to actions of the city (e.g. height restrictions).

bdcravens 8y ago

Which would be true regardless of AirBnB's presence, right? So the "AirBnB inflation" is still a thing.

ribosometronome 8y ago
As is "hotel inflation" and "car inflation" and "park inflation".
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
But what about the things that aren't true because of AirBnB's presence? Maybe prices for short term stays went down, tourism went up, and there is more tax revenue that can be used to improve the city for the renters. If we only look at one part of the picture we may miss that an overall trend is different. Is it really beneficial to talk about how many died because they were wearing a seat belt without also considering how many who lived for the same reason?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Maybe prices for short term stays went down Sure, allowing residential property to be used for short-term rental drives regular residential rents up and short-term rents down (forcing, over time, more residential proerties to be used for short-term rental to the extent possible), narrowing the gap between short-term and long-term rentals. It makes things less expensive for travellers and more expensive for non-travellers.
  - lazerpants 8y ago
    Perhaps the problem then, is that the city slaps a huge tax burden on travelers who choose to stay in hotels? Last time I stayed in a hotel in NYC, taxes were about 25% of the total cost.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  I'm only one datapoint, but every AirBnB I've stayed in merely reduced my expenses while traveling. It didn't encourage me to change my habits while I was there. If anything, it just kept more money in my pocket for discretionary spending once I got home.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    But if it is cheaper, more people will do it. And since you still spent the same amount of taxable money, you didn't contribute to a loss. So if it is cheaper, how many more will travel?