3 ms·

It's a great upside for you. It's a huge downside for the people who actually need to live and work in an area. AirBnB is one of the worst things to have happen

It's a great upside for you. It's a huge downside for the people who actually need to live and work in an area. AirBnB is one of the worst things to have happened in some cities (I know Barcelona has reacted quite negatively to it). In Dublin, for instance, the pandemic literally doubled the long-term rental supply as houses/apartments flooded off AirBnB.

baby 5y ago
“You” is everybody who has travelled pretty much. If you travel today you most likely are taking advantage of Airbnb
- dorchadas 5y ago
  And that's exactly why it's a problem. So many people are traveling, and so many are taking houses that could go to residences of the area. Also, I don't like that generalization. I stay at hotels when I travel, and actually so do most of the people I know who travel regularly. They prefer what they get with a hotel over AirBnB. So it's not quite as widespread as that, though I do agree, and will counter that that only exacerbates the problem. It's the entitlement of tourists to feel like they should live like the locals when they're not.
  - handoflixue 5y ago
    If one party is willing to pay higher prices, isn't it basic Free Market Economics to say that it's good that the housing supply is now going to the people who value it higher? You keep talking about how this is bad for some people, but that just means a tradeoff is being made, and you're not making any argument that it's a bad tradeoff. Why are the tourists "entitled" but the locals somehow aren't? (Honestly curious here - real estate economics seem to run by different rules and I've never understood why this is so bad)
    - dorchadas 5y ago
      > isn't it basic Free Market Economics to say that it's good that the housing supply is now going to the people who value it higher? This assumes basic free market economics is good in all cases, which is not something I agree with. Especially with something this is an essential need (living residences) and in a finite supply. > Why are the tourists "entitled" but the locals somehow aren't? I mean, the locals actually live and work there. The tourists don't. They come in, do what they want and leave. They want to live like a local while they're there, though, even though they're not locals. And them living like a local actually harms the real locals. It's the entitlement that they feel that they should live as if they're members of the community when they're not, and that it happens at the expense of the residents of the town. I find it hard to believe someone is "entitled" to be able to live like a local in their own town. > (Honestly curious here - real estate economics seem to run by different rules and I've never understood why this is so bad) Because it destroys the housing market for the residents of the town/city. Driving up prices for them, and driving them further out of the city, etc. Lots of negative externalities come from it for the people who actually need to live and work there.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        Doesn't living like a local mean using local services, spending money in local shops, attending festivals and adding to the culture? A beach town makes most of their money in the summer and it pays for services year round residents enjoy. These places are better off for the tourism. Many people can continue to work locally because of tourist because locals are buying off the internet. More and more people are coming to the US. Hanging a newcomers are not welcome here sign ignores that areas of New York start off as one group and constantly change as new waves of people come to the city. The city keeps getting more expensive.
        dorchadas 5y ago
        > Doesn't living like a local mean using local services, spending money in local shops, attending festivals and adding to the culture? The thing is, a lot of these are leaving. As the full-time residents move out of the city, the businesses that cater to them do too, and what's left is touristy things, making it harder for the few residents who do still live in an area overrun by short term rentals. I'd also argue that visitors who only stay for a week or a month do not add to the culture of a town. They're there to take advantage of it without adding anything, and it ends up destroying it as all those who actually do create the culture get pushed out. > Hanging a newcomers are not welcome here sign ignores that areas of New York start off as one group and constantly change as new waves of people come to the city. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that newcomers aren't welcome. I'm arguing that tourists who want to live as locals harm the area by forcing prices up for the residents of the town and forcing them outwards, as well as myriad other issues (e.g. coming home at all hours of the night loudly drunk while people are trying to sleep because they have to go to work tomorrow)

baby 5y ago

“You” is everybody who has travelled pretty much. If you travel today you most likely are taking advantage of Airbnb

dorchadas 5y ago
And that's exactly why it's a problem. So many people are traveling, and so many are taking houses that could go to residences of the area. Also, I don't like that generalization. I stay at hotels when I travel, and actually so do most of the people I know who travel regularly. They prefer what they get with a hotel over AirBnB. So it's not quite as widespread as that, though I do agree, and will counter that that only exacerbates the problem. It's the entitlement of tourists to feel like they should live like the locals when they're not.
- handoflixue 5y ago
  If one party is willing to pay higher prices, isn't it basic Free Market Economics to say that it's good that the housing supply is now going to the people who value it higher? You keep talking about how this is bad for some people, but that just means a tradeoff is being made, and you're not making any argument that it's a bad tradeoff. Why are the tourists "entitled" but the locals somehow aren't? (Honestly curious here - real estate economics seem to run by different rules and I've never understood why this is so bad)
  - dorchadas 5y ago
    > isn't it basic Free Market Economics to say that it's good that the housing supply is now going to the people who value it higher? This assumes basic free market economics is good in all cases, which is not something I agree with. Especially with something this is an essential need (living residences) and in a finite supply. > Why are the tourists "entitled" but the locals somehow aren't? I mean, the locals actually live and work there. The tourists don't. They come in, do what they want and leave. They want to live like a local while they're there, though, even though they're not locals. And them living like a local actually harms the real locals. It's the entitlement that they feel that they should live as if they're members of the community when they're not, and that it happens at the expense of the residents of the town. I find it hard to believe someone is "entitled" to be able to live like a local in their own town. > (Honestly curious here - real estate economics seem to run by different rules and I've never understood why this is so bad) Because it destroys the housing market for the residents of the town/city. Driving up prices for them, and driving them further out of the city, etc. Lots of negative externalities come from it for the people who actually need to live and work there.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Doesn't living like a local mean using local services, spending money in local shops, attending festivals and adding to the culture? A beach town makes most of their money in the summer and it pays for services year round residents enjoy. These places are better off for the tourism. Many people can continue to work locally because of tourist because locals are buying off the internet. More and more people are coming to the US. Hanging a newcomers are not welcome here sign ignores that areas of New York start off as one group and constantly change as new waves of people come to the city. The city keeps getting more expensive.
      - dorchadas 5y ago
        > Doesn't living like a local mean using local services, spending money in local shops, attending festivals and adding to the culture? The thing is, a lot of these are leaving. As the full-time residents move out of the city, the businesses that cater to them do too, and what's left is touristy things, making it harder for the few residents who do still live in an area overrun by short term rentals. I'd also argue that visitors who only stay for a week or a month do not add to the culture of a town. They're there to take advantage of it without adding anything, and it ends up destroying it as all those who actually do create the culture get pushed out. > Hanging a newcomers are not welcome here sign ignores that areas of New York start off as one group and constantly change as new waves of people come to the city. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that newcomers aren't welcome. I'm arguing that tourists who want to live as locals harm the area by forcing prices up for the residents of the town and forcing them outwards, as well as myriad other issues (e.g. coming home at all hours of the night loudly drunk while people are trying to sleep because they have to go to work tomorrow)