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

NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 161 posts

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#51

Post by noirbot »

evanlivingston wrote: post #28
sigfubar wrote: post #5

So, I'm paying an extra $68/month because of Airbnb. Alright.

$68 a month is easily 5% of income afters taxes for many people. In a country where we already spend an absurdly high percentage of our income on rent, this doesn't seem trivial.

It's only 5% if you have an average yearly after-tax income of ~16,000 if I did my math right. The median income for NYC is ~50,000.

I would also imagine that most of the people for whom $68/month is a lot of money also don't generally live in neighborhoods that are ones with lots of Airbnb rentals, and are probably some of the least effected by this.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#52

Post by sigfubar »

evanlivingston wrote: post #28
sigfubar wrote: post #5

So, I'm paying an extra $68/month because of Airbnb. Alright.

$68 a month is easily 5% of income afters taxes for many people. In a country where we already spend an absurdly high percentage of our income on rent, this doesn't seem trivial.

Numerically you're right, but you're showing a distinction without a difference. In the kinds of neighborhoods where Airbnb has a foothold (gentrified, desirable, centrally located) rents are already so high that an extra $68 doesn't make a damn bit of difference. I live in one of these neighborhoods, and I speak for absolutely everyone who can afford to pay the rent I'm paying: we don't care about the additional $68.

Those for whom $68 really is 5% of net monthly income don't live in Airbnb-infested neighborhoods, and thus are even less affected by the impact Airbnb has on rental prices.

I don't mean to sound insensitive to the plight of those for whom NYC is too expensive. I think such people need to be helped, but spending even an iota of thought on Airbnb is a waste of time: its impact is concentrated in neighborhoods that are already too far out of the reach of rent-challenged New Yorkers. And this isn't the case because of Airbnb.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#53

Post by sigfubar »

loeg wrote: post #45
sigfubar wrote: post #5

So, I'm paying an extra $68/month because of Airbnb. Alright.

How do you arrive at $68/mo? 8.5 million people live in NYC. 2/3 rent. My math puts that at $109/ year .

My goodness, how could I have been so far off the mark?

Then my point is even stronger: this doesn't matter!

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#54

Post by kolbe »

pyrophane wrote: post #10

For anyone interested, here is the full text of the study: https://www.dropbox.com/s/u4s1fcync2gseyl/AirBnB_Report%20FI... A brief description of how they attempted to control for other factors: > We also control for demographic and economic changes in neighborhood level by including average household income (in log form), population (in log form), and the shares of college-educated and employed residents in the neig…

I can't dl the report, but based on your quote, I'd say there's nothing about this 'study' supports their conclusion. It's fine that they control for some stuff, but it's absurd attribute the remaining price effects to AirBnB.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#55

Post by josephorjoe »

jedberg wrote: post #36
josephorjoe wrote: post #27

Is there really much evidence that the majority of Airbnb properties would otherwise be traditional "12 month lease" rental apartments if it were not for Airbnb. I mean, I'm sure there are a few, but if I'm a landlord, why would I give up having a stable tenant paying market rate rent for 12 months at a time for essentially managing a hotel room? Sure, the 'rent per day' is going to be a lot better with the hotel roo…

> but if I'm a landlord, why would I give up having a stable tenant paying market rate rent for 12 months at a time for essentially managing a hotel room. As of today, there is a lot less paperwork involved, and also the tenant has fewer rights. If you rent for 12 months, and they stop paying you, it could take you many months to get rid of that person, and you'd never get the money back. You also have to find renter…

Fair enough, although there are plenty of realtors happy to help landlords vet and negotiate w tenants for 12 month leases (and then charge the tenant a fee for their services).

I still see more risk/work in the AirBnb model, but I can see where some landlords (esp. local ones w small numbers of apartments) could find it worth it.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#56

Post by dragonwriter »

jabgrabdthrow wrote: post #38
dragonwriter wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The odd thing is that AirBnB’s entire value proposition to hosts is that it increases realizable income from the property they control and make available through AirBnB; if true, especially in the presence of supply constraints, this has to increase market clearing prices. They are in a position where what they need hosts to believe is directly at odds with what they want policymakers (including people voting directl…

I ponder, are there more rooms getting listed that weren’t before (increasing supply and dropping price) or are existing rooms on the market becoming more marketable (increasing price directly with a fixed supply as you suggest). “Both” yes but ponder more with me I ponder I ponder I bet it depends on the city

> I ponder, are there more rooms getting listed that weren’t before

Certainly, for short-term rentals.

Not for residential, long-term habitation. AirBnB drives long-term and short-term rental prices closer together, which is good for travellers and bad for non-travellers.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#57

Post by loeg »

kazinator wrote: post #40
loeg wrote: post #39

$616M / (⅔ * 8.5M) (Edit: was 8M) residents = about $109 (was: $77) per resident renter in 2016.

Residents are not renters. The number of renters in NYC was evidently around 5.4 million in 2016. Even so, not every renter is a separate rental unit; dividing the figure by the number of rental units would be more useful since it would indicate the impact on the price of rent.

Do you think there are a substantial number of property owners?

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/06/new-york-is-a-city-of...

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/...

> Approximately two-thirds of dwelling units in New York are renter-occupied, over twice the national average.

Ok, not insignificant, but the order of magnitude is roughly correct. I'll update the computed figure.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#58

Post by icebraining »

travisp wrote: post #50

If a few thousand airbnb units cost renters that much money, imagine how much renters would save if more and taller buildings were allowed to be built!

Does NYC impose heavy restrictions on the height of buildings? I've never been there, but they seem tall to me.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#59

Post by icebraining »

49bc wrote: post #48

Wait a second. The entire population of New York state is 20 million. How could they possibly have paid an extra $616 million? Each person in New York paid an extra $30 million?

616M/20M is not 30 million - you have to take out the million :)

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#60

Post by SilasX »

loeg wrote: post #39

$616M / (⅔ * 8.5M) (Edit: was 8M) residents = about $109 (was: $77) per resident renter in 2016.

Yeah, I was about to say, an aggregate figure isn't very meaningful here -- it should be per capita, or per household/unit, or per square foot.
Post reply on HN