NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by loceng » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

neonate wrote: post #23

loceng wrote: post #4

'Airbnb Inc. disputed the study’s findings, calling them “wrong on the facts” and containing “substantive issues with the methodology.”' Did Airbnb publish what these wrong facts and substantive issues are?

Two problems mentioned in the rebuttal: the study counts every Airbnb unit as a rental taken permanently off the market, and the dataset counts every blocked-off calendar date as a night the unit was booked. Both of those are obvious over-counting. A study that doesn't even try to account for those is pretty obviously political. Airbnb should have posted estimates of how much this over-counting could distort the data…

On the surface you can't assume either way if a listing on Airbnb means the unit is permanently off the market or not, likewise with counting or not counting every blocked-off calendar date: if it's not a period of 4-8-12 months blocked off, then it's likely not being rented to a long-term renter; the lister perhaps even perhaps booked those block-off calendar dates through a different service, or did the transaction not through/off of Airbnb.

Whether it's $100MM or $616M - it's a sign that there are external costs that that city and society must shoulder because of the higher prices people can charge with shorter-term rentals, primarily to non-locals who may or may not be staying or moving to the city.

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

#72

Post by conanbatt » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:33 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #11

loceng wrote: post #4

'Airbnb Inc. disputed the study’s findings, calling them “wrong on the facts” and containing “substantive issues with the methodology.”' Did Airbnb publish what these wrong facts and substantive issues are?

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…

Yes, but it will also increase occupants and the experience of occupants.

If you put a fancy restaurant that sells gourmet popcorn, you raise the price of popcorn in general, and you can also increase the amount of people that eat popcorn.

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

#73

Post by loceng » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:34 PM UTC

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #33

smsm42 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/

From that: They do not address the possibility that the atypical minority (which presumably is apartments used exclusively for AirBNB and not otherwise occupied by a tenant) might cause the $626M rent increase illustrated by the study. This paragraph seems to be a diversionary tactic, "No, look only at these facts".

I agree that there'd need to be an independent research body to get into more depth, otherwise everyone will be sharing based on biased perspectives or shallow data.

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

#74

Post by charlottetrvm » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:34 PM UTC

The exact same true is for hotels, only worse. ANYTHING that uses up space that is not used for housing is by definition increasing rent for everyone. Hotels have a much bigger effect than Airnb because you'll find hotels in all of the most expensive and densely populated cities. If you replaced all hotels with regular rental units, think about how much rents would go down.

To be more accurate, the report should say: NYC Renters paid extra thanks to ANYTHING that takes up space that is not a rental unit, especially hotels.

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

#75

Post by hb3b » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:36 PM UTC

Unfortunately, Airbnb is probably the only way a middle-class family can earn money on investment properties. No one in their right mind would rent a $1,000,000 condo for (1% rule) $10,000.

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

#76

Post by nnm » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:36 PM UTC

"For each 1 percent of all residential units in a neighborhood listed on Airbnb, rents in that neighborhood went up 1.58 percent, Stringer said."

Correlation does not imply causation[1]. Looks to me this is one of the studies that I would label as "shallow" or "problematic".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...

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

#77

Post by loeg » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:39 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #63

loeg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please elaborate on how being off by a factor of 7x makes your point even stronger.

If you are dismissive of the pain of an extra $1, you are probably dismissive (and even more so) of the pain of an extra $0.14.

Ah, I didn't realize OP was arguing the $68/mo was insignificant. My mistake.

I see $68/mo as a decent chunk of change (that's enough to pay for a new computer every two years or so) so that's probably where the confusion stems from.

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

#78

Post by loeg » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #68

loeg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is still that your $109 is per renting person. A family of five in one dwelling is five renters: but they are not paying 5 x $109 more on their rent because of AirBNB! The denominator has to be the number of rental dwellings; then we have a better idea what the impact is on rental prices, on average. Still, it must be dependent on area, and the size of the place and rent amount. Not everyone pays some sor…

The more specific we try and make the $616M figure, the less accurate a predictor it becomes :-). I didn't want to go too far in that direction.

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

#79

Post by alonmower » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

zip1234 wrote: post #69

alonmower wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't 'limit' tourism but yes, don't allow tourists to get price breaks at the expense of residents that rent in a city. As it stands property owners and tourists are coming out on top. Property owners can now easily make more money renting short term than long term, this raises property prices (because, hey, i can buy that house and make a bunch of money renting it on AirBnB) while also reducing the rental housing s…

Where would those tourists stay if they didn't use AirBnB? I can see where the residents may get priced out of a certain area because short term rental drives up the price, but the increase demand and higher prices should stimulate new construction. Now, if height restrictions are causing no new construction to be built, then perhaps the city should ease those so more housing can be built, driving the prices down. Th…

In hotels? Further away? It'd be more expensive or more inconvenient so fewer would come, but residents wouldn't be bearing the negative externalities as much as they are today.

I live in SF so while I wholeheartedly agree that more building should help solve the problem the reality (here at least) is that existing homeowners have strong incentives to oppose rezoning and new development as it might hurt their home's values. Many people have overextended to be able to buy here that anything that could cause dips in prices is vehemently opposed. I'll admit SF has a broader set of issues at play here but AirBnB just further strains an already strained situation.

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

#80

Post by loceng » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

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

Likewise, something to wonder, is many reviews will - at least in the past - would reference that they never met the "owner" of the listing. I know some cities are trying to crack down on this, however how hard is it to setup a company that has a structure where a real person gets listed as owner (and perhaps gets paid $100 a month for using their identity) and the company manages everything, acting as "real person?"