Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Subject: Airbnb (2011)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 165 posts

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#151

Post by CryptoPunk »

emodendroket wrote: post #108
jMyles wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People refusing to stay in the locality and socioeconomic conditions of their birth place, and instead exploring the world and learning about its people, is gentrification now? The amount of NYC-born privilege being waved around in this thread is astounding. I have paid, in many ways, for NYC my whole life. It's my city too, even though I wasn't born there. I identify with its culture. I know its geography and social…

If we have to make the choice I think it is reasonable to privilege the concerns of people who live in a place year-round over those visiting for a week.

Let's say a 400 square mile area of land can only accommodate 10 million people, but that 2 billion would prefer to live there if they could, because it is one of the nicest localities in the world.

Why have 10 million lucky individuals get year round access to it, rather than giving 1 billion people 3-4 days each to visit it?

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#152

Post by CryptoPunk »

parthdesai wrote: post #130
jMyles wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...why? What makes this law worth following in the first place?

Because it directly impacts the residents who live there full time and pay all the taxes to that city and state? Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying. I live in downtown Toronto and here are some of the issues i face due to Airbnb: i) Some of the residents make living a hell. T…

>>Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying.

Another short-term resident would be there in his place on the days he's not in NYC. Year round there will almost always be someone staying in his unit.

And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#153

Post by parthdesai »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #152
parthdesai wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it directly impacts the residents who live there full time and pay all the taxes to that city and state? Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying. I live in downtown Toronto and here are some of the issues i face due to Airbnb: i) Some of the residents make living a hell. T…

>>Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying. Another short-term resident would be there in his place on the days he's not in NYC. Year round there will almost always be someone staying in his unit. And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they p…

>And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base.

Per day costs, sure. But if you add recurring payments, don't think they are outspending it. Also, you are ignoring the entire point to begin with. A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost. Unless you want it to eventually become a ghost city.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#154

Post by emodendroket »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #151
emodendroket wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we have to make the choice I think it is reasonable to privilege the concerns of people who live in a place year-round over those visiting for a week.

Let's say a 400 square mile area of land can only accommodate 10 million people, but that 2 billion would prefer to live there if they could, because it is one of the nicest localities in the world. Why have 10 million lucky individuals get year round access to it, rather than giving 1 billion people 3-4 days each to visit it?

Because the alternative is not a city but a city-sized theme park.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#155

Post by CryptoPunk »

parthdesai wrote: post #153
CryptoPunk wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Every day that you don't live in the city and make a purchase outside the city is a tax-dollar that city is missing out on and that someone living full time in the city is paying. Another short-term resident would be there in his place on the days he's not in NYC. Year round there will almost always be someone staying in his unit. And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they p…

>And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base. Per day costs, sure. But if you add recurring payments, don't think they are outspending it. Also, you are ignoring the entire point to begin with. A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost. Unless you want it to eventually become a ghost city.

I haven't seen any evidence that long-term residents contribute more to the tax base per capita. The spending differential between short term and long term renters is so large that it seems not just plausible, but likely, that the former contribute more on balance.

>>A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost.

I don't see why it should. A city should look after those within its boundaries, whether they're there for a day or a year. It shouldn't set up walls and promote long term residence over visits.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#156

Post by CryptoPunk »

emodendroket wrote: post #154
CryptoPunk wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say a 400 square mile area of land can only accommodate 10 million people, but that 2 billion would prefer to live there if they could, because it is one of the nicest localities in the world. Why have 10 million lucky individuals get year round access to it, rather than giving 1 billion people 3-4 days each to visit it?

Because the alternative is not a city but a city-sized theme park.

Maybe the most desirable locations on Earth should be theme parks that a billion people can visit, rather than gated mega-communities for ten million wealthy/lucky long-term residents.

Maybe one day the typical life will consist of visiting a different theme-park-like city every few days, and people will identify with their planet rather than a few hundred square miles that's designated as their city of residence.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#157

Post by parthdesai »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #155
parthdesai wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And short term renters tend to spend more per day than long-term residents, so they probably contribute significantly more to the city's tax base. Per day costs, sure. But if you add recurring payments, don't think they are outspending it. Also, you are ignoring the entire point to begin with. A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost. Unless you want it to eventually become a ghost city.

I haven't seen any evidence that long-term residents contribute more to the tax base per capita. The spending differential between short term and long term renters is so large that it seems not just plausible, but likely, that the former contribute more on balance. >>A City should look after it's long term residents first and foremost. I don't see why it should. A city should look after those within its boundaries, w…

> A city should look after those within its boundaries, whether they're there for a day or a year. It shouldn't set up walls and promote long term residence over visits.

So a citizen of a country and a visitor of the country should get equal rights and opportunities as well?

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#158

Post by emodendroket »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #156
emodendroket wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the alternative is not a city but a city-sized theme park.

Maybe the most desirable locations on Earth should be theme parks that a billion people can visit, rather than gated mega-communities for ten million wealthy/lucky long-term residents. Maybe one day the typical life will consist of visiting a different theme-park-like city every few days, and people will identify with their planet rather than a few hundred square miles that's designated as their city of residence.

Well I wonder who is going to keep the cities running then.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#159

Post by jMyles »

emodendroket wrote: post #158
CryptoPunk wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the most desirable locations on Earth should be theme parks that a billion people can visit, rather than gated mega-communities for ten million wealthy/lucky long-term residents. Maybe one day the typical life will consist of visiting a different theme-park-like city every few days, and people will identify with their planet rather than a few hundred square miles that's designated as their city of residence.

Well I wonder who is going to keep the cities running then.

This reminds me of the statist trope, "who will build the roads?!"

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#160

Post by jMyles »

bluntfang wrote: post #132
jMyles wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, well, those of us who live there for I don't understand the strawman - what argument did I mischaracterize in an attempt to make it appear weaker for the purposes of responding to it?

You're ignoring the fact that 30million people already live there by posing that people shouldn't be doing that in this day and age. It doesn't matter what your opinion of those 30 million people are, the fact is that it is the current condition.

...but I can say the exact same thing:

You're ignoring the fact that millions of people already live for only a few weeks out of the year there by posing that people shouldn't be doing that in this day and age. It doesn't matter what your opinion of those people are, the fact is that it is the current condition.

Post reply on HN