2 ms·

Numerically you're right, but you're showing a distinction without a difference. In the kinds of neighborhoods where Airbnb has a foothold (gentrified, desirabl

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.

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.