6 ms·

Ah yes, "innovation" in skirting regulations as AirBnb does. Harming local communities and extracting wealth in the name of "tech disruption".

rco8786 8y ago
Its easy to be cynical. It’s harder to recognize that any significant societal change is going to come with some identifiable downside and that those downsides aren’t automatically a reason to not make the change.
- luckydata 8y ago
  What kind of benefit does society get from Airbnb that's so necessary to disrupt the lives of people living in a city and raising rents on folks that can't afford it?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmitriy_ko 8y ago
    "AirBnb increasing rents" is theory popularized by hotel industry and never been confirmed with hard data. AirBnb allows anyone to profit from demand for lodging, as opposed to few large hotel chains taking all profit. For many AirBnb hosts it's their livelihood. E.g. do you see benefit in anyone being able to start a restaurant or do you think only large restaurant chains should be able to do it? Also AirBnb increases tourist traffic benefiting other businesses.
    - Zhenya 8y ago
      Well you stepped right into it. You need a TON of permits to open a restaurant and you can not open in your house, it has to be in a commercial space. Furthermore, you are free to open your own hotel. You just need to do it in a commercial zoned area since you are doing commercial things.
      - rco8786 8y ago
        Technology has always outrun regulation. It’s not any different in these cases. Regulators will catch up as they always have. This, truly, is how progress has been made since the dawn of time. You’re taking the same position people took against the printing press, automobiles, and computers when they were all in their infancy. Restaurants in people’s homes were incredibly common until health regulators showed up.
        luckydata 8y ago
        Yeah, I wonder why.
        Zhenya 8y ago
        some regulation is useful I wonder if RCO8786 would eat at a small family owned restaurant with a low health score.
        rco8786 8y ago
        Of course not. I’m in no way arguing against regulation, I have no idea how you concluded that. I’m saying that regulation always trails innovation.
        rco8786 8y ago
        I don’t follow your comment, though it seems pretty sarcastic. How do you suggest that it works? How do you propose that we regulate innovation before the innovation occurs? Bit difficult, no?
        lazyasciiart 8y ago
        Regulation was way ahead of airbnb here. Enforcement had to catch up.
        rco8786 8y ago
        Yes I did sort of lump those together. But it's not 100% enforcement either. Lots of place didn't and don't have rules against short term rentals - but we're seeing more and more pop up in response to Abnb
- ben_jones 8y ago
  That is such a slippery slope. How do you distinguish between painful societal change that will actually produce long term benefits versus painful societal change that is virtue signaling as good but really is lining the pockets of, ironically, Chinese and Saudi Arabian investors.
  - rco8786 8y ago
    A) that’s not what a slippery slope means B) carefully and thoughtfully. Airbnb has also enabled a whole slew of new small business owners. Uber has demonstrably cut down on the number of traffic deaths attributable to drinking and driving. Etc etc. you have to evaluate the whole.
dehrmann 8y ago
I agree that Airbnb wasn't particularly innovative and didn't use technology in an interesting way, but they're not "extracting wealth." They're closer to an arbitrage play that takes advantage of, originally, surplus inventory, but now, price differences between hotels and apartments. The house rental market was also underserved before they showed up. It's not like OTAs offered home for rent next to hotels.
closeparen 8y ago
Disrupting and extracting value from NIMBYs would definitely be on my personal “request for startups” list.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  NIMBYs seems to be the new slur for "exerting property and voting rights". That's democracy and capitalism. There's a reason it's not in their backyard. It's their backyard.
  - belligeront 8y ago
    'Exerting property rights' = preventing others from building on their property. 'Exerting voting rights' = zone newcomers, poor people, and apartment dwellers out of existence so they can't vote in our local elections.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Yes, those rights. If you’re a newcomer, buy where the community aligns with your development and density desires. Otherwise, go elsewhere. Don’t expect the community to change for you because you think your ideas are “better”. This isn’t meant to sound combative, these are just facts.
      - landryraccoon 8y ago
        I’m afraid this reasoning totally falls flat for the SF bay area and other tech hubs. It can’t simultaneously both be the case that Google, Facebook, Uber, Apple and Microsoft are permitted to have outsized global influence and massive impact on communities everywhere AND Sf bay/seattle/wherever else gets to tell every other community to mind their own business because local communities should control their own culture. Those companies themselves create the conditions that force tech workers everywhere to look for jobs in a few select cities. That is the height of hypocrisy. The moment Google and Facebook stake out massive cultural monopolies is the moment the community they reside in has to give up a little bit for the well being of the larger national and global community.

rco8786 8y ago

Its easy to be cynical. It’s harder to recognize that any significant societal change is going to come with some identifiable downside and that those downsides aren’t automatically a reason to not make the change.

luckydata 8y ago
What kind of benefit does society get from Airbnb that's so necessary to disrupt the lives of people living in a city and raising rents on folks that can't afford it?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dmitriy_ko 8y ago
  "AirBnb increasing rents" is theory popularized by hotel industry and never been confirmed with hard data. AirBnb allows anyone to profit from demand for lodging, as opposed to few large hotel chains taking all profit. For many AirBnb hosts it's their livelihood. E.g. do you see benefit in anyone being able to start a restaurant or do you think only large restaurant chains should be able to do it? Also AirBnb increases tourist traffic benefiting other businesses.
  - Zhenya 8y ago
    Well you stepped right into it. You need a TON of permits to open a restaurant and you can not open in your house, it has to be in a commercial space. Furthermore, you are free to open your own hotel. You just need to do it in a commercial zoned area since you are doing commercial things.
    - rco8786 8y ago
      Technology has always outrun regulation. It’s not any different in these cases. Regulators will catch up as they always have. This, truly, is how progress has been made since the dawn of time. You’re taking the same position people took against the printing press, automobiles, and computers when they were all in their infancy. Restaurants in people’s homes were incredibly common until health regulators showed up.
      - luckydata 8y ago
        Yeah, I wonder why.
        Zhenya 8y ago
        some regulation is useful I wonder if RCO8786 would eat at a small family owned restaurant with a low health score.
        rco8786 8y ago
        Of course not. I’m in no way arguing against regulation, I have no idea how you concluded that. I’m saying that regulation always trails innovation.
        rco8786 8y ago
        I don’t follow your comment, though it seems pretty sarcastic. How do you suggest that it works? How do you propose that we regulate innovation before the innovation occurs? Bit difficult, no?
      - lazyasciiart 8y ago
        Regulation was way ahead of airbnb here. Enforcement had to catch up.
        rco8786 8y ago
        Yes I did sort of lump those together. But it's not 100% enforcement either. Lots of place didn't and don't have rules against short term rentals - but we're seeing more and more pop up in response to Abnb
ben_jones 8y ago
That is such a slippery slope. How do you distinguish between painful societal change that will actually produce long term benefits versus painful societal change that is virtue signaling as good but really is lining the pockets of, ironically, Chinese and Saudi Arabian investors.
- rco8786 8y ago
  A) that’s not what a slippery slope means B) carefully and thoughtfully. Airbnb has also enabled a whole slew of new small business owners. Uber has demonstrably cut down on the number of traffic deaths attributable to drinking and driving. Etc etc. you have to evaluate the whole.

dehrmann 8y ago

I agree that Airbnb wasn't particularly innovative and didn't use technology in an interesting way, but they're not "extracting wealth." They're closer to an arbitrage play that takes advantage of, originally, surplus inventory, but now, price differences between hotels and apartments. The house rental market was also underserved before they showed up. It's not like OTAs offered home for rent next to hotels.

closeparen 8y ago

Disrupting and extracting value from NIMBYs would definitely be on my personal “request for startups” list.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
NIMBYs seems to be the new slur for "exerting property and voting rights". That's democracy and capitalism. There's a reason it's not in their backyard. It's their backyard.
- belligeront 8y ago
  'Exerting property rights' = preventing others from building on their property. 'Exerting voting rights' = zone newcomers, poor people, and apartment dwellers out of existence so they can't vote in our local elections.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Yes, those rights. If you’re a newcomer, buy where the community aligns with your development and density desires. Otherwise, go elsewhere. Don’t expect the community to change for you because you think your ideas are “better”. This isn’t meant to sound combative, these are just facts.
    - landryraccoon 8y ago
      I’m afraid this reasoning totally falls flat for the SF bay area and other tech hubs. It can’t simultaneously both be the case that Google, Facebook, Uber, Apple and Microsoft are permitted to have outsized global influence and massive impact on communities everywhere AND Sf bay/seattle/wherever else gets to tell every other community to mind their own business because local communities should control their own culture. Those companies themselves create the conditions that force tech workers everywhere to look for jobs in a few select cities. That is the height of hypocrisy. The moment Google and Facebook stake out massive cultural monopolies is the moment the community they reside in has to give up a little bit for the well being of the larger national and global community.