3 ms·

Thanks, I mean, why would anyone build hotels and employ union workers when they can just convert housing to hotels? </rant>

• fennecfoxen 11y ago
  Exactly. Why pay for more capital and labor expenses to convert existing productive real estate into a generic, anodyne hotel experience with amenities like daily housekeeping service that I don't need? One that's probably located in the tourist-trap district? Instead, I can utilize existing capital more efficiently and enjoy myself in a real part of San Francisco designed for actual human beings, and spend the savings on something more relevant to my interests (like more frequent travel). Almost certainly this means more profits going to local businesses -- and to the homeowner as well, who is more likely to spend them locally than HotelCorp. Granted, there are some contract issues if the host rents the apartment instead of owning it, and there is a risk of some externalities (chronic noisy guests upsetting neighbors) which could be managed with light regulation... but surely the idea is a sound one which should be embraced and encouraged. Right? And those would-be unionized hotel employees would be there to do useful work for fair pay, no? They're not charity cases and I should't feel bad or feel compelled to use their services if I don't need those services at all, right? </counter-rant>