4 ms·

So, I'm paying an extra $68/month because of Airbnb. Alright.

evanlivingston 8y ago
$68 a month is easily 5% of income afters taxes for many people. In a country where we already spend an absurdly high percentage of our income on rent, this doesn't seem trivial.
- mancerayder 8y ago
  This is NYC in the report. That's about $1360 post-tax which is about 32K a year which is a bit above minimum wage in NYC (around 12-13/hr). I respectfully suggest not living in the most expensive neighborhoods in New York City if minimum wage jobs are what you're forced to endure.
- loeg 8y ago
  The $68/mo figure is off by a factor of 7.5, as far as I can tell. It's actually ~$109/year per resident.
- noirbot 8y ago
  It's only 5% if you have an average yearly after-tax income of ~16,000 if I did my math right. The median income for NYC is ~50,000. I would also imagine that most of the people for whom $68/month is a lot of money also don't generally live in neighborhoods that are ones with lots of Airbnb rentals, and are probably some of the least effected by this.
- sigfubar 8y ago
  Numerically you're right, but you're showing a distinction without a difference. In the kinds of neighborhoods where Airbnb has a foothold (gentrified, desirable, centrally located) rents are already so high that an extra $68 doesn't make a damn bit of difference. I live in one of these neighborhoods, and I speak for absolutely everyone who can afford to pay the rent I'm paying: we don't care about the additional $68. Those for whom $68 really is 5% of net monthly income don't live in Airbnb-infested neighborhoods, and thus are even less affected by the impact Airbnb has on rental prices. I don't mean to sound insensitive to the plight of those for whom NYC is too expensive. I think such people need to be helped, but spending even an iota of thought on Airbnb is a waste of time: its impact is concentrated in neighborhoods that are already too far out of the reach of rent-challenged New Yorkers. And this isn't the case because of Airbnb.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    You are insisting on the $68 a month figure based on dividing the total prchange in prices over all rentals then insisting the effect is actually almost entirely concentrated in a small segment of neighborhoods which means that we ought not logically to divide it between all parties but insisting on using the smaller figure derived from doing so. This is bad math based on already uncertain math. In a pathological case where we have a rich neighborhood consisting of 3 owners and 7 renters transformed into 3 owners 3 renters and 4 airbnbs not only would the price increase presumably by much more than 68 for the remaining renters the other renters would seek rent elsewhere increasing demand and therefore price. Given more buyers than sellers they would push someone out presumably to a still less desirable neighborhood where they would displace someone else. Your neighborhood isn't a market unto itself and you can't pretend changes their don't have pervasive effects on the rest of the market and decreasing supply MUST increase price throughout the market.
loeg 8y ago
How do you arrive at $68/mo? 8.5 million people live in NYC. 2/3 rent. My math puts that at $109/year.
- sigfubar 8y ago
  My goodness, how could I have been so far off the mark? Then my point is even stronger: this doesn't matter!
  - loeg 8y ago
    Please elaborate on how being off by a factor of 7x makes your point even stronger.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      If you are dismissive of the pain of an extra $1, you are probably dismissive (and even more so) of the pain of an extra $0.14.
      - loeg 8y ago
        Ah, I didn't realize OP was arguing the $68/mo was insignificant. My mistake. I see $68/mo as a decent chunk of change (that's enough to pay for a new computer every two years or so) so that's probably where the confusion stems from.
        noirbot 8y ago
        Some quick googling says that the average apartment rent in Manhattan is ~$4000/month, so at that sort of rate, $64 is only about a 2% increase. The 100/year is barely noticeable to most people when you're already paying nearly 50,000/year. It's a tangible amount, but if you're paid enough to live in that area, it's likely not a huge burden. And again, this is an change that is likely disproportionately raising rents in desirable and trendy neighborhoods that are more expensive than that already and likely seeing natural rent growth of more than $68.

$68 a month is easily 5% of income afters taxes for many people. In a country where we already spend an absurdly high percentage of our income on rent, this doesn't seem trivial.

mancerayder 8y ago
This is NYC in the report. That's about $1360 post-tax which is about 32K a year which is a bit above minimum wage in NYC (around 12-13/hr). I respectfully suggest not living in the most expensive neighborhoods in New York City if minimum wage jobs are what you're forced to endure.
loeg 8y ago
The $68/mo figure is off by a factor of 7.5, as far as I can tell. It's actually ~$109/year per resident.
noirbot 8y ago
It's only 5% if you have an average yearly after-tax income of ~16,000 if I did my math right. The median income for NYC is ~50,000. I would also imagine that most of the people for whom $68/month is a lot of money also don't generally live in neighborhoods that are ones with lots of Airbnb rentals, and are probably some of the least effected by this.
sigfubar 8y ago
Numerically you're right, but you're showing a distinction without a difference. In the kinds of neighborhoods where Airbnb has a foothold (gentrified, desirable, centrally located) rents are already so high that an extra $68 doesn't make a damn bit of difference. I live in one of these neighborhoods, and I speak for absolutely everyone who can afford to pay the rent I'm paying: we don't care about the additional $68. Those for whom $68 really is 5% of net monthly income don't live in Airbnb-infested neighborhoods, and thus are even less affected by the impact Airbnb has on rental prices. I don't mean to sound insensitive to the plight of those for whom NYC is too expensive. I think such people need to be helped, but spending even an iota of thought on Airbnb is a waste of time: its impact is concentrated in neighborhoods that are already too far out of the reach of rent-challenged New Yorkers. And this isn't the case because of Airbnb.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  You are insisting on the $68 a month figure based on dividing the total prchange in prices over all rentals then insisting the effect is actually almost entirely concentrated in a small segment of neighborhoods which means that we ought not logically to divide it between all parties but insisting on using the smaller figure derived from doing so. This is bad math based on already uncertain math. In a pathological case where we have a rich neighborhood consisting of 3 owners and 7 renters transformed into 3 owners 3 renters and 4 airbnbs not only would the price increase presumably by much more than 68 for the remaining renters the other renters would seek rent elsewhere increasing demand and therefore price. Given more buyers than sellers they would push someone out presumably to a still less desirable neighborhood where they would displace someone else. Your neighborhood isn't a market unto itself and you can't pretend changes their don't have pervasive effects on the rest of the market and decreasing supply MUST increase price throughout the market.

loeg 8y ago

How do you arrive at $68/mo? 8.5 million people live in NYC. 2/3 rent. My math puts that at $109/year.

sigfubar 8y ago
My goodness, how could I have been so far off the mark? Then my point is even stronger: this doesn't matter!
- loeg 8y ago
  Please elaborate on how being off by a factor of 7x makes your point even stronger.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    If you are dismissive of the pain of an extra $1, you are probably dismissive (and even more so) of the pain of an extra $0.14.
    - loeg 8y ago
      Ah, I didn't realize OP was arguing the $68/mo was insignificant. My mistake. I see $68/mo as a decent chunk of change (that's enough to pay for a new computer every two years or so) so that's probably where the confusion stems from.
      - noirbot 8y ago
        Some quick googling says that the average apartment rent in Manhattan is ~$4000/month, so at that sort of rate, $64 is only about a 2% increase. The 100/year is barely noticeable to most people when you're already paying nearly 50,000/year. It's a tangible amount, but if you're paid enough to live in that area, it's likely not a huge burden. And again, this is an change that is likely disproportionately raising rents in desirable and trendy neighborhoods that are more expensive than that already and likely seeing natural rent growth of more than $68.