611–620 of 736 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine living in a nice forest home near Tahoe. 20 years ago you had neighbors you talked to and could borrow a tool from. Now you have a never ending flow of new tourists visiting Tahoe staying at the Airbnb next to your house.
You have no right to control who comes into your neighborhood. This idea has deep ugly roots (e.g. redlining).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many others have chimed in, but this is very important to highlight. Meeting with clients, going to conference, having important meetings, these are things we consider work. However, from the eyes of the law, these are temporary things that need to be done in person for business that has already occurred. That is, if you come to a conference, meet a potential client, and then set up a sales meeting before you leave,…
There must be some exception to this. I am a US citizen working for a London company and a few times a year I go over, explicitly telling the immigration officer it's for "business meetings," and that's explicitly allowed. I couldn't just go work for the hell of it but as a manager of a team it makes sense I make special occasion trips. Technically they could ask me to produce a letter from my employer explicitly con…
Ive worked for a coding bootcamp since before covid. We used to be in person only and Ive gotten to see the ups and downs of the full-remote transition for at this point hundreds of jr devs entering the field. Long story short everything I thought would get negative blowback or go up in flames didnt. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop and it never does. Our students work through around 1000 hours of computer s…
I know someone who became mentally ill when the bootcamp switched from in-person to remote and had enough stress to develop schizophrenia from the stresses of trying to apply for jobs remotely and alone in 2020.
That can be good when it lets people tailor their environment to their own peculiar interests. And it can be bad for people where the normalizing environment of a shared social space helps them drag some deficient attribute back up to a healthy level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is, in my opinion, a massive and near total loss for all the renters, first-time homebuyers, existing families, and the sense of community in areas affected by AirBnB's cancerous growth.
Why?
Short term rentals aren't a bad thing in of itself, but the purpose of zoning is that different locations serve different needs better. When you live in a neighborhood you expect there to be elementary schools near your house, and that there's quiet hours so that you can sleep during the night. ect.
Hotels and by extension air bnb's disrupt this balance. If the five condo towers surrounding the school suddenly become short term rentals overnight, either the school needs to move or kids have to travel farther. And no amount of police presence is going to make tourists not party during 1 am. You tell one group to stop, well the next is coming in 3 days.
And it goes the other way too. Having night life congregated together makes it easier for public services to their job. You can have more paramedics prepared for overdoses - enhanced police presence because drunk people are stupid, ect.
Even if air bnb's aren't a net negative on the economy, skirting of local regulations have qualitative effects on the the city that shouldn't be discounted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Introversion/extroversion isn't a distinctive feature of Myers-Briggs - it shows up in more scientifically-respectable personality measures, like the five-factor (OCEAN) model.
Isn't it the very first letter?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not "random people". They're human beings. What's optimal time of stay? Maybe ban students or renters as well. Might stay longer than 2 nights but certainly they dont have a "stake in the surrounding community". Might as well ban hotels while you're at it. Again, trying to engineer who lives in your community is wrong IMO
I'm sorry, but given the unwarranted extreme language you're using, this is clearly a trigger issue for you independent of what the parent comment was saying. No one is talking about "rights", "control", "redlining", or dehumanization. All they are doing is observing that people like to live next to human beings they can form longer-term relationships with. This is the fundamental fabric of human society and there is…
> All they are doing is observing that people like to live next to human beings they can form longer-term relationships with.
Maybe we should ban renters as well. Higher home ownership rates has been shown time and time again to be critical for psychological health and societal success. So why not nudge out renters? Curious where you draw the line and why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doing rentals to tenants without a paper trail would allow them to claim squatter's rights, which are a nightmare for landlords.
OP was doing it outside of US so I'd imagine such cases would have been settled very differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, sure. Since we're sharing takes, here is how I read that statement: Smart people exist outside of the SFBA. (Or Seattle. Or NYC. Or London. Or ...) As someone who is intimately familiar with geographic discrimination, this was nice to read. I grew up and went to school in the US bible belt. When sending out resumes, the only companies I ever heard back from (even a 'no thanks'!) were local, or cosmic luck (hire…
My point is that its supposed to feel good but that verbatim reading isn't really whats happening. Over the past two years lots of people left the SFBA, Seattle, NYC etc. They didn't move to the US Bible Belt they went to islands, Miami, Austin, Southern California.... so to keep talent and get some of the other talent back, they released this statement. about nomads. It's not about people with feeble parents and hea…
I used my life in the bible belt as an anecdotal example, but it can apply to many places.
Disparaging a company's move just because - acktualllly it benefits them - will have you hating every business on the planet.
My point here is they didn't _have_ to do this. Places like Google and Apple are all but telling remote workers to kick rocks. Others like Facebook say 'be remote but we are doing CoLA.' ABNB's policy here is the most fair (and generous) out of the ones I've seen. If that attracts workers, good for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just legally avoid taxes by not letting your employer know. Sure, they prob won't know and you'll get away with it, but you're technically breaking the law and an employer won't knowingly condone that. So it's not that they have a right to know where you are, it's that if they do notice and not act on it that's a legal risk to them as well since they're enabling it. (IANAL but this feels common sense.)
The simple answer is to do away with the notion that earning income should be taxable. Tax on the consumption side, it's easier to enforce and harder to avoid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If its the former, then that seems sort of like hybrid work just 1 week per 13 week versus 2-3 day per 5 day where you should probably stick to within 1-2 hour commute of your local AirBNB office. >If its the latter then that seems like it might be a non-starter for people with families. And that's okay! If people don't like it or can't make it work with their lifestyle, they don't have to work there
On the other hand, normally you want to try and broaden the pool you hire from, not narrow it.