4 ms·

If there is demand for staying at "secret hotels" why should the regulator ban that? The only problem that I see is that this income might not be currently bein

by josu 12y ago

If there is demand for staying at "secret hotels" why should the regulator ban that? The only problem that I see is that this income might not be currently being taxed. Just get Airbnb to share their data with the IRS and problem solved. And if hotels go out of business, good riddance. If consumers rather pay a bit less and stay in a house or an apartment, why should the regulator want to mess with their preferences? As of: >This drives up rents for residents as it reduces supply of long term housing and inflates landlords expectations on what they can charge. Take down hotels and build apartment buildings. If as you say the demand is there, the market should take care of it. Although hotels tend to be more space efficient, so new apartment buildings could not be enough to completely offset the price surge.

nostromo 12y ago
> get Airbnb to share their data with the IRS and problem solved Airbnb does this already.
opendais 12y ago
> If there is demand for staying at "secret hotels" why should the regulator ban that? The problem is they are secret from the regulators too and aren't following the regulations. > Take down hotels and build apartment buildings. If as you say the demand is there, the market should take care of it. Although hotels tend to be more space efficient, so new apartment buildings could not be enough to completely offset the price surge. That isn't how it works. The market doesn't magically fix things when the financial incentive is towards the decision without the "social good" of providing housing to residents. Harmful externalities are something the market blindly ignores because capital can just ignore the damage.
- josu 12y ago
  >The problem is they are secret from the regulators too and aren't following the regulations. Which regulations? >Harmful externalities are something the market blindly ignores because capital can just ignore the damage. What harmful externalities apply to this case?
  - opendais 12y ago
    Read the OP. The "secret hotels" are not following residential fire codes, in numerous instances. Which is a danger to themselves and others. > What harmful externalities apply to this case? Shifting housing supply from long term housing [e.g. apartments with 6+ month leases] to hotels/AirBnB rentals [short term housing], reduces long term housing stock and raises prices for residents. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/nyregion/poverty-rate-in-city-rises-to-21-2.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/nyregion/poverty-rate-in-c... 20% of NY is below the poverty line. Raising the cost of a basic necessity is really corporate welfare [because it increases costs for the government]. Much like the issue with minimum wage: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w... You really have 3 choices: 1) Deprive people of basic necessities. 2) Raise taxes on Capital [because Labor can't afford it, they are the one that would be subsidized...] to subsidize the basic necessities for the poor. [Hmm, seems alot of AirBnb folks are trying to dodge taxes...making them share data with the IRS/State Tax boards is nice but that doesn't make money appear out of thin air]. 3) Set the rules in such a way that there is enough long term housing stock that upward price pressure is kept in line with inflation and let the market sort the rest of it out. Now you can argue I'm wrong and there is some magical 4th option [e.g. "Increased spending by consumers/capital due to more economic efficiency from using AirBNB"] the problem with this is, without a study proving this claim you don't really have a leg to stand on.
    - josu 12y ago
      >The "secret hotels" are not following residential fire codes, in numerous instances. Which is a danger to themselves and others. If this is true, this problem transcends Airbnb. If the building doesn't comply with those does, it doesn't matter what it is being used for. >Shifting housing supply from long term housing [e.g. apartments with 6+ month leases] to hotels/AirBnB rentals [short term housing], reduces long term housing stock and raises prices for residents. So if hotels produce the same kind of externalities, why are the regulators only focusing on Airbnb?
      - 12y ago

by josu 12y ago

nostromo 12y ago

> get Airbnb to share their data with the IRS and problem solved Airbnb does this already.

opendais 12y ago

> If there is demand for staying at "secret hotels" why should the regulator ban that? The problem is they are secret from the regulators too and aren't following the regulations. > Take down hotels and build apartment buildings. If as you say the demand is there, the market should take care of it. Although hotels tend to be more space efficient, so new apartment buildings could not be enough to completely offset the price surge. That isn't how it works. The market doesn't magically fix things when the financial incentive is towards the decision without the "social good" of providing housing to residents. Harmful externalities are something the market blindly ignores because capital can just ignore the damage.

josu 12y ago
>The problem is they are secret from the regulators too and aren't following the regulations. Which regulations? >Harmful externalities are something the market blindly ignores because capital can just ignore the damage. What harmful externalities apply to this case?
- opendais 12y ago
  Read the OP. The "secret hotels" are not following residential fire codes, in numerous instances. Which is a danger to themselves and others. > What harmful externalities apply to this case? Shifting housing supply from long term housing [e.g. apartments with 6+ month leases] to hotels/AirBnB rentals [short term housing], reduces long term housing stock and raises prices for residents. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/nyregion/poverty-rate-in-city-rises-to-21-2.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/nyregion/poverty-rate-in-c... 20% of NY is below the poverty line. Raising the cost of a basic necessity is really corporate welfare [because it increases costs for the government]. Much like the issue with minimum wage: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w... You really have 3 choices: 1) Deprive people of basic necessities. 2) Raise taxes on Capital [because Labor can't afford it, they are the one that would be subsidized...] to subsidize the basic necessities for the poor. [Hmm, seems alot of AirBnb folks are trying to dodge taxes...making them share data with the IRS/State Tax boards is nice but that doesn't make money appear out of thin air]. 3) Set the rules in such a way that there is enough long term housing stock that upward price pressure is kept in line with inflation and let the market sort the rest of it out. Now you can argue I'm wrong and there is some magical 4th option [e.g. "Increased spending by consumers/capital due to more economic efficiency from using AirBNB"] the problem with this is, without a study proving this claim you don't really have a leg to stand on.
  - josu 12y ago
    >The "secret hotels" are not following residential fire codes, in numerous instances. Which is a danger to themselves and others. If this is true, this problem transcends Airbnb. If the building doesn't comply with those does, it doesn't matter what it is being used for. >Shifting housing supply from long term housing [e.g. apartments with 6+ month leases] to hotels/AirBnB rentals [short term housing], reduces long term housing stock and raises prices for residents. So if hotels produce the same kind of externalities, why are the regulators only focusing on Airbnb?
    - 12y ago