SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
There are two kinds of horror stories about Airbnb. When the home-sharing platform first appeared, the initial cautionary tales tended to emphasize extreme guest (and occasionally host) misbehavior. But as the now decade-old service matured and the number of rental properties proliferated dramatically, a second genre emerged, one that focused on what the service was doing to the larger community: Airbnb was raising rents and taking housing off the rental market. It was supercharging gentrification while discriminating against guests and hosts of color. And as commercial operators took over, it was transforming from a way to help homeowners occasionally rent out an extra room into a purveyor of creepy, makeshift hotels.
Several studies have looked into these claims; some focused on just one issue at a time, or measured Airbnb-linked trends across wide swaths of the country. But a recent report by David Wachsmuth, a professor of Urban Planning at McGill University, zeroes in on New York City in an effort to answer the question of exactly what home sharing is doing to the city.
Source: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/03/what-airbnb-did-to-new-york-city/552749/
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @07:16PM (43 children)
Here's another view: It made New York City more productive than it was before; this has caused much needed resources to flow into the previously undesirable business of tearing down cruft and building up new infrastructure.
While it's true that poorer, less productive people have been pushed out of the way in order to make such improvements possible, it is also true (as it always has been), that they have been pushed into the last place that rich[er] people improved, and it is true that one day the poor people will be moving back into these places that are being improved today.
Long live capitalism; it's what keeps our society from falling into the inevitable disrepair of socialist regimes that allocate all of their resources to perpetuating the poor and unproductive sectors of society.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @07:22PM (1 child)
You write that as if it's one group. In reality, these are two independent groups that have some overlap but much less than people generally assume.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @08:04PM
The officer ran towards the source of the screams, which were coming from a wide alleyway. Around a minute ago, the officer had heard an adult male screaming for help, and so he immediately flew into action. Upon arriving at the scene, the policeman spotted a naked man on top of a naked woman, violating and beating her. While doing this, the man was screaming for help.
The officer analyzed the situation. Using his superior sense of observation and reasoning skills honed by decades of experience as a cop, the policeman instantly deduced that the woman was oppressing the man. The cop took out his gun and open fired on the woman, killing her nearly instantly. The man who had been screaming for help looked relieved to be free from his oppressor.
It was later determined that the woman had been a feminist, proving that she wanted to deprive men of their rights. The officer who so valiantly stood up to injustice received numerous accolades for his work.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday March 09 2018, @07:44PM (6 children)
> it is also true (as it always has been), that they have been pushed into the last place that rich[er] people improved
No, it's not. Not even close.
Poorer people (a relative thing if they were in NYC a decade ago) get pushed away, into distant suburbs, into neighborhood that were segregated a long time ago, or into areas filled with leftovers of economic shifts (warehouse areas). Essentially, wherever even gentrifying optimists don't want to venture yet. The result of that shift is pretty much always a longer commute and a shittier environment for their family, contributing to keep them at a disadvantage to escape poverty.
Upper-middle-class people might get pushed into "the last place that rich[er] people improved". Especially in this case, where the rich end up removing even more permanent housing than per the normal delusions of grandeur (a.k.a. big offices and giant housing), the lowest earners just get removed from every pleasant (i.e. Airbnb-profitable) area.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @08:02PM (5 children)
When the productive people start moving where production is possible, they call it "white flight".
When the poor start moving where consumption is cheaper, they call it "gentrification".
What they neglect to tell you is that the poor follow the productive in a giant circle: The productive build up something new and shiny, use it for a while, and then move on to do it again; meanwhile, the poor follow behind them, consuming what's left along the way (which is always better than what they had before), leaving behind more trash for the productive to pick up on the next time through.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 09 2018, @08:17PM (4 children)
"They" ?
Not even touching the rest of your comment. You assimilate the means of production (driven by logistics) and the actual living areas (driven, for the rich, by quality of life), and that's merely the start of where you're wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @08:35PM (3 children)
It sounds like you're getting hung up on the word "production".
(Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Friday March 09 2018, @08:47PM (2 children)
It's a habit: I also can't shake up gravity. Reality sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @08:56PM (1 child)
That should help improve your relationship with gravity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:16AM
I just checked. All 54 kg of me still accelerates at 9.8 m/s² towards the center of the planet when I jump in place. Fortunately, the ground below me is capable of supporting all of my mass.
(Score: 5, Informative) by looorg on Friday March 09 2018, @07:47PM (15 children)
Depends on how you think of productivity. Yes it makes room for more "higher paying high performance" people to move in or get into the city. What they rarely mention is that the city also need a fair amount of "low performance low pay" people to maintain it and the people living there. Those in turn are being pushed out further and further from the city. When you make your airbnb-slum-hotels or whatnot you are in essence removing the places they used to live in. Who will maintain the stores, city services, cook food, drive the ubers etc. These are not high paying and qualified jobs but they still need to be performed. How "high performing and productive" people are going to remain that if all their essential services are just all of a sudden to expensive to maintain. You just can't have a city filled with Richy Rich and then demand that the servants live in squalor -- after all there really is barely any need for them to do so, they can just take a shit job someone else without having to do the hours of commute and live in some roach motel.
So you enjoy your Ayn Rand fantasy where only the rich and productive are around when all of a sudden all the prices will go thru the roof and you wonder where all the poor slaves went that formed the base of your little pyramid.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @08:10PM (14 children)
Why is it that you guys can only think a half a step ahead?
If the richer, more productive people drive prices up, then includes the price of all those "low" jobs—those unskilled folk will command a higher income.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Friday March 09 2018, @08:43PM (13 children)
How is it that you guys never know how the economy actually works? There is no increase at a sustainable rate or transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. Prices associated with living are driven up faster then any wage increases for the low income people. There really is no trickle down effect or economy, it's a theoretical fantasy that doesn't work. The segment of the work force that is growing is the low paying low skill jobs and they are not really getting paid that much more. There is just to many people there, so the wages can be kept down since there is always another wage slave around that you don't really have to pay a sustainable income to.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @08:54PM (12 children)
It's time to start reducing the population; society doesn't need you to have kids.
And, trickle-down does indeed work. It took rich people to fund the computing industry, and now even homeless people have super computers in their pockets. (What a mistake that was! All the rich got in return was a bunch of ungrateful layabouts flooding Internet forums with calls for socialism, the exact opposite of that which has created the richest poor people that the world has ever known.)
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by looorg on Friday March 09 2018, @09:03PM (11 children)
Are you sure you are not the socialist? They tend to get a raging boner for genocide.
Somehow I get the impression that those poor homeless people would be in a lot better shape if they had an actual home, food or healthcare instead of a phone. It's not that a phone it's worthless, but it's a pointless luxury compared to the basics of living. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's nothing new. It has nothing to do with socialism, it's realism.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @09:28PM
You're the one who brought up "genocide"; nobody said anything like that. Supply and Demand applies to the human population, too; it's not just something that should be ignored, especially if you insist (at the point of a gun) that one group needs to pull weight for another group.
Secondly, the poor or homeless of today have more help than at any other time in the entire history of this planet, and many enjoy benefits that would make even the Kings of yore envious. It's absurd to try to shame rich people for the plight of poor people
Go work with poor people, especially the homeless; it will change your opinion—it will make you realize that they aren't just you on hard times.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Friday March 09 2018, @11:02PM (2 children)
Sometimes the poor are in worse shape (and quite possibly are poor in the first place) because they make bad/stupid choices - or at least choices that look that way to the rest of us.
I have seen someone trying to work out how much a minimum wage increase would deduct from their housing benefit, to see if they could still afford the rent. They were working it out on their brand new contract iphone (apparently a "really good deal" - still several times what I would pay for a phone, and I actually have money to spare each month).
Capitalism gives you the choice of how you want to throw your money away, socialism typically doesn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @10:46AM
I was fortunate to choose the right parents and the right upbringing and had bone spurs and a high draft number. What can you do? Sucks to be poor ner-ner. That's actual government policy BTW.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday March 10 2018, @07:28PM
...and sometimes they aren't. Proceeding as if they all were making the same mistakes you might be willing to decry as bad/stupid is... bad/stupid.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @11:25PM (2 children)
You're the one who brought up "genocide"; nobody said anything like that. Supply and Demand applies to the human population, too; it's not just something that should be ignored, especially if you insist (at the point of a gun) that one group needs to pull weight for another group.
Secondly, the poor or homeless of today have more help than at any other time in the entire history of this planet, and many enjoy benefits that would make even the Kings of yore envious. It's absurd to try to shame rich people for the plight of poor people
Go work with poor people, especially the homeless; it will change your opinion—it will make you realize that they aren't just you on hard times.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:27AM (1 child)
You're doing that thing again where you repost. We enjoy debating with you, but it could be time to step away from the keyboard for a while. Get some fresh air. Are there nature trails near by?
One thing I like to do when the internet makes me depressed is head out to a rustic campground about 50 miles away. There are miles and miles of hiking trails there. Is there somewhere near you like that? Buy some firewood and cook a steak or something over the fire. I guarantee you'll feel a lot better after a night of sleeping in fresh, clean air and waking up surrounded by mother nature's beauty.
The place I go to is hardly ever close to full except for holiday weekends. Often I'll only see two or three other distant campfires at night.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @01:35PM
Sorry, poor people can't afford to take 50 mile drives for pleasure, let alone days off work to appreciate nature. There is no respite from the bitterness of the world, just an endless stream of anger building up until the seals blow.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @01:54AM (1 child)
Historically, it's the fascists who had the boner for genocide. Communist/socialist governments just let the poor starve.
These days, the fascists still have a boner for genocide. Whereas modern socialist governments learned something from history, and are actually doing pretty well on the whole.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @10:52AM
No, by definition (the Conservapedia definition) it's socialists like Hitler that wipe out the Jews and other riff-raff. That's why you have, presumably, liberal Obama supporters marching in Charlottesville waving the Nazi flag. Good people, tho. Many, many good people on that side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:22AM (1 child)
I hear this argument a lot - poor people are having a lot of kids - but it is so completely false. Birth-rate alone hardly has any effect on population, it is the difference between birth rate and death rate which affects population. Historically, both have followed each other closely. Population increase in last century is a direct consequence of detaching death rate from the equation due to better medical facilities, mostly the invention of anti-biotics, and the ability of poor people to avail these inventions. I suppose that is why so many people are against universal health-care, they really want the poor people to die.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:32PM
Of course, that doesn't imply that they should die; it just implies they shouldn't be created.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Friday March 09 2018, @07:59PM (10 children)
Or much needed resources flowing into re-habing existing buildings perhaps? Lofts, gutted and turned into nice residences. The problem is that if those are only used for AirBNB there is zero gain. AirBNBs sit empty for long periods of time.
Still its urban renewal privately funded, something that seldom happens when you rely on the city, and when it does happen under government control, you get another PROJECT.
So it may be true from a infrastructure point of view. But probably not from a racial point of view. (Can we stop using the word gentrification and call it what is is: racism?)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by krishnoid on Friday March 09 2018, @08:13PM (5 children)
People may argue about whether it's racist, but it's pretty unambiguously classist, right?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @08:25PM
Under capitalism, there is no such thing as classism, because what matters is your purchasing power.
That is totally different from Classism, which attributes to a person certain rights based solely on social pedigree (birth, or special designation); in the Europe of old, you could be as poor as a hobo, but still command respect (by law!) just for being a nobleman. That is "classism". A modern example might be the caste system of India.
Even in America (where capitalism is pissed on constantly by the powers that be), there is enough economic "mobility" that people move up and down the hierarchy of purchasing power all the time, and it all that really matters is how productive you are to the people around you.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @11:27PM (3 children)
Under capitalism, there is no such thing as classism, because what matters is your purchasing power.
That is totally different from Classism, which attributes to a person certain rights based solely on social pedigree (birth, or special designation); in the Europe of old, you could be as poor as a hobo, but still command respect (by law!) just for being a nobleman. That is "classism". A modern example might be the caste system of India.
Even in America (where capitalism is pissed on constantly by the powers that be), there is enough economic "mobility" that people move up and down the hierarchy of purchasing power all the time, and it all that really matters is how productive you are to the people around you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:15AM (2 children)
Nope. In the US, classism isn't based on birth or name. Classism in the US is based on socioeconomic status [wikipedia.org] and melanin [wikipedia.org] content.
And it's not like this is a big secret or anything. The "working class" [wikipedia.org], the "middle class" [wikipedia.org] , the "upper class" [wikipedia.org]. Those terms are based in classism. It's not the European idea of an aristocracy and peasants, which is a relic of the feudal age, but it's classism nonetheless.
And economic mobility [wikipedia.org] is on the wane in the US.
So. You're just flat wrong. Will you make an evidence-based argument to support your position? I think not, as there is no evidence to support it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:35PM
That's all.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11 2018, @01:35AM
That's all.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @08:18PM
If it's more lucrative to leave lofts empty for large periods of time, then what does that say about the renters? It says New York has been housing bums for far too long.
A racist outcome does not imply a racist intention. For one, I can guarantee you that Jews are over-represented among the gentrifiers—and, yet, they are such a tiny minority that they might as well be dust in comparison to the "underserved" people of whom you're thinking when you scream "racism".
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @11:29PM
If it's more lucrative to leave lofts empty for large periods of time, then what does that say about the renters? It says New York has been housing bums for far too long.
A racist outcome does not imply a racist intention. For one, I can guarantee you that Jews are over-represented among the gentrifiers—and, yet, they are such a tiny minority that they might as well be dust in comparison to the "underserved" people of whom you're thinking when you scream "racism".
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:36PM
If it's more lucrative to leave lofts empty for large periods of time, then what does that say about the renters? It says New York has been housing bums for far too long.
A racist outcome does not imply a racist intention. For one, I can guarantee you that Jews are over-represented among the gentrifiers—and, yet, they are such a tiny minority that they might as well be dust in comparison to the "underserved" people of whom you're thinking when you scream "racism".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11 2018, @01:38AM
If it's more lucrative to leave lofts empty for large periods of time, then what does that say about the renters? It says New York has been housing bums for far too long.
A racist outcome does not imply a racist intention. For one, I can guarantee you that Jews are over-represented among the gentrifiers—and, yet, they are such a tiny minority that they might as well be dust in comparison to the "underserved" people of whom you're thinking when you scream "racism".
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 09 2018, @10:06PM (6 children)
It made New York City more productive than it was before;
People on vacation generally try NOT to be productive.
As for the trust of the article I'm a bit on the fence. I think the 2nd order effects like raising rents are a bit hard to blame on short term rentals. However, much like Uber, they think "On A Computer" means they're allowed to ignore the existing laws about hotel accommodations which is BS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @10:42PM (5 children)
So, there. You've been hoist by your own petard.
Before, people went on vacation and left an empty, useless apartment behind, with nobody engaging in local commerce either.
Now, not only is that apartment being used productively, but it's bringing in tourists who generate local business and help fill governmental coffers.
Ergo, NY is now more productive than it used to be.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Osamabobama on Friday March 09 2018, @11:43PM (4 children)
Implicit in your argument is that the Airbnb customers are additional tourists who aren't canceling hotel reservations for a vacation to the city that would happen either way. If the Airbnb service is merely displacing lodgers away from hotels into cheaper apartments, it would make the city less productive, in economic terms.
Of course, it is likely that additional supply at a lower price will increase the size of the market overall, but that is not necessarily the case.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @01:54AM (2 children)
All the better for NY city. Now, there is more money to fund that excursion to Broadway, or even off-Broadway.
There is NEVER anything wrong with increased efficiency.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:48AM (1 child)
"There is NEVER anything wrong with increased efficiency."
Creative destruction makes economists' dicks hard
But it has innocent victims: there are 4000 homeless in Portland
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:03PM
Only 4K? That sounds like a rounding error to me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Adamsjas on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:46AM
Implicit in his argument also is that the hotels wouldn't be screaming so loudly if they weren't losing the price war so badly.
https://qz.com/779121/airbnb-vs-hotel-cost-comparison-you-can-rent-an-entire-home-on-airbnb-for-the-price-of-a-hotel-room/ [qz.com]
Note: Unexpectedly, this report comes from ShareBetter, an anti-Airbnb lobbying group, and was funded in part by the hotel industry.
In most markets you get a whole house / apartment for the price of a single hotel room.
For over night stays, hotels still see most of that traffic. But people who want to go spend a weekend or a week are finding the AirBNB a far better deal.
But AirBNB makes MORE of the city productive (in terms of income) because it locates people in neighborhoods that would not benefit from hotel traffic on hotel row. The local stores and restaurants have new customers, who will probably visit more often than the actual house owner, and the house owner gets money for time they would have left the house vacant.
So AirBnB customers are very likely additional tourists - or at least additional to the ABNB neighborhoods.