"It was because they weren’t tech companies. They are transportation companies, subject to all the problems that entails."
Hey, that was my point!
Needless to say that I agree, and we have very low-tech solutions to all of this. Buses and trains solve for the "lack of transportation" problem, and we've had those for centuries. They would also be nice during the present oil crises. As for AirBNB, we just need more hostels. They seem to be really rare in the US while they were everywhere in Europe. None of that involves slick apps though.
As in, you rewrote it so that it wasn't too similar to my piece?
Although I do think you communicated the not-really-tech part better than I did. I was more focused on the not-really-useful part. I like the restaurant analogy, and I think it would happen if restaurant employees weren't paid jack shit to begin with.
Nice piece! It's cool to see you've started putting stuff out there again, I look forward to the rest of this series.
I don't think I had seen the point made before about how these companies changed the culture and social expectations around cabbing and running hostels. That's pretty interesting. I feel like there are some intriguing implications there, that warrant further exploration.
I love to think about gone jobs. Think about telegrams. There was a time when they were sort of like text messages (except they had to go to the telegraph office and be delivered). I still have the telegram my father sent to his mother on Dec. 9, 1941...it just said he was alive.
I wish there was an alternative world of customer service that has middlemen. I miss them.
Nice insights about Uber; engaging personal anecdotes, but I my wait to be enlightened about why "I both dislike their impact on livability and housing and I dislike it as a business. And although it is roaring now, if there’s one thing I don’t have long term faith in, it’s Airbnb" was never fulfilled.
I'm afraid I don't get it. It doesn't sound like your concern is for the financial viability of the company (is it)? I'm perfectly willing to be convinced, but my experience with AirBnB has been nothing but great. Being able to match your accommodation to your pocket is good; being able to find somewhere at short notice, with all the logistics sorted ... also great. Umm ... I don't see any impact on liveability and housing, but could be quite wrong.
Good catch, as this may have been left over from an earlier version which was much more about AirBNB. The most succinct version of this argument:
1) AirBNB largely operates illegally, particularly in the most desirable locations. It essentially gets by through local government incompetence in enforcement. It's dangerous for me to get too much deeper into this (attorney confidentiality and all that) but I have certainly seen this first hand.
2) The very nature of Airbnb means that it is drawing homes in the most desirable areas, which means both the areas with the lowest amount of supply to meet demand as well as the most entrenched and powerful interests.
3) Even if Airbnb's effect on housing prices isn't as severe as, let's say, zoning, it's a much softer target for political action. In my time in politics I learned that the combination of going against entrenched interests - particularly homeowners - and being a soft target is a bad combination.
4) Unlike with Uber, who only had to contend with overcoming one hated constituency (cab companies) and benefited people who live in the city, Airbnb is essentially shorting the government on taxes and raising housing prices while benefiting only the people who actually Airbnb their properties. The other benefit is to tourists. The problem is tourists get boned in any political debate because they have no say. Hotels in major cities have absurd hotel occupancy taxes because it's an easy constituency to raise taxes on. Tourists don't vote.
Leaving aside whether any of that is "just," it reads to me like Airbnb is largely skating by through lax regulatory oversight while at the same time being a plump tomato for picking by a lot of powerful interests. My other problem with Airbnb is that they adopted the Uber/Lyft model of "flood the market with low cost services subsidized by VC cash, eliminate your competition, hike prices." That "worked" for Uber/Lyft (worked if you ignore the concept of being profitable) because they could wholly take over the market. Airbnb's raising prices - largely through adding fees. I'd expect that as this continues - and Airbnb both loses a price advantage over hotels while also damaging brand identity - they will continue to slot themselves into more of a niche market.
I could be TOTALLY wrong about all of this and in 20 years everyone will be staying at Airbnbs. But I don't like those combination factors.
Wow! Thanks for taking so much trouble to try and get me to understand. I've made progress, and you've got me to think about areas I hadn't considered. I still don't quite understand the corruption and house prices thing, but perhaps because I lack your experience in that direction ... er, on the law side, naturally! I'm such an innocent. I'm the sort of person nobody has ever tried to sell drugs to!
... it also may be because I'm not a great fan of tax. Since I disapprove of huge amounts of expenditure, on military enterprises e.g. I regard a large percentage of taxation as theft. I'm guessing that the illegality you're referring to is at least partly tax evasion; and if that is so, it's probably tax I wouldn't approve of in the first place.
The raise of "professional host" and "superhost" classifications on Airbnb as well as the appearance of "homes" on Booking.com suggests that a convergence of traditional hospitality (probably less of a "hotel" type and more of a "holiday home/cottage/cabin" type is occuring.
The fact that Airbnb has also introduced all kinds of stabdards-controls and requirements also points to professionalisation of the hotel-like service provided.
On the other end of the scale, the "rent a cheap room" version of Airbnb also has a pre-internet ancestor: the locals in resort/popular holiday destinations renting rooms in season. These would originally appear at train stations where the holiday makers arrived, to be picked in a taxi-like fashion, but (in person and later on, by-phone) bureaus would emerge as middlemen. There was an understanding that such rooms would provide relatively low standards for low price.
A concept of a B&B / guest house undoubtedly emerged as a year-round evolution of that service.
"Furnished rooms" to rent long-term have been a thing for probably 150+ years, often "with family" or ways to generate income by widowed or otherwise single women wealthy enough to own a house but needing income.
Caveat: my experience is from Europe, and mostly from touristy areas. I have never encountered medium/longer term lets operated via Airbnb or anyone who used Airbnb this way.
"It was because they weren’t tech companies. They are transportation companies, subject to all the problems that entails."
Hey, that was my point!
Needless to say that I agree, and we have very low-tech solutions to all of this. Buses and trains solve for the "lack of transportation" problem, and we've had those for centuries. They would also be nice during the present oil crises. As for AirBNB, we just need more hostels. They seem to be really rare in the US while they were everywhere in Europe. None of that involves slick apps though.
I told you I rewrote weeks of material! I do definitely credit you, just not until the final part.
As in, you rewrote it so that it wasn't too similar to my piece?
Although I do think you communicated the not-really-tech part better than I did. I was more focused on the not-really-useful part. I like the restaurant analogy, and I think it would happen if restaurant employees weren't paid jack shit to begin with.
Nice piece! It's cool to see you've started putting stuff out there again, I look forward to the rest of this series.
I don't think I had seen the point made before about how these companies changed the culture and social expectations around cabbing and running hostels. That's pretty interesting. I feel like there are some intriguing implications there, that warrant further exploration.
I love to think about gone jobs. Think about telegrams. There was a time when they were sort of like text messages (except they had to go to the telegraph office and be delivered). I still have the telegram my father sent to his mother on Dec. 9, 1941...it just said he was alive.
I wish there was an alternative world of customer service that has middlemen. I miss them.
Nice insights about Uber; engaging personal anecdotes, but I my wait to be enlightened about why "I both dislike their impact on livability and housing and I dislike it as a business. And although it is roaring now, if there’s one thing I don’t have long term faith in, it’s Airbnb" was never fulfilled.
I'm afraid I don't get it. It doesn't sound like your concern is for the financial viability of the company (is it)? I'm perfectly willing to be convinced, but my experience with AirBnB has been nothing but great. Being able to match your accommodation to your pocket is good; being able to find somewhere at short notice, with all the logistics sorted ... also great. Umm ... I don't see any impact on liveability and housing, but could be quite wrong.
Good catch, as this may have been left over from an earlier version which was much more about AirBNB. The most succinct version of this argument:
1) AirBNB largely operates illegally, particularly in the most desirable locations. It essentially gets by through local government incompetence in enforcement. It's dangerous for me to get too much deeper into this (attorney confidentiality and all that) but I have certainly seen this first hand.
2) The very nature of Airbnb means that it is drawing homes in the most desirable areas, which means both the areas with the lowest amount of supply to meet demand as well as the most entrenched and powerful interests.
3) Even if Airbnb's effect on housing prices isn't as severe as, let's say, zoning, it's a much softer target for political action. In my time in politics I learned that the combination of going against entrenched interests - particularly homeowners - and being a soft target is a bad combination.
4) Unlike with Uber, who only had to contend with overcoming one hated constituency (cab companies) and benefited people who live in the city, Airbnb is essentially shorting the government on taxes and raising housing prices while benefiting only the people who actually Airbnb their properties. The other benefit is to tourists. The problem is tourists get boned in any political debate because they have no say. Hotels in major cities have absurd hotel occupancy taxes because it's an easy constituency to raise taxes on. Tourists don't vote.
Leaving aside whether any of that is "just," it reads to me like Airbnb is largely skating by through lax regulatory oversight while at the same time being a plump tomato for picking by a lot of powerful interests. My other problem with Airbnb is that they adopted the Uber/Lyft model of "flood the market with low cost services subsidized by VC cash, eliminate your competition, hike prices." That "worked" for Uber/Lyft (worked if you ignore the concept of being profitable) because they could wholly take over the market. Airbnb's raising prices - largely through adding fees. I'd expect that as this continues - and Airbnb both loses a price advantage over hotels while also damaging brand identity - they will continue to slot themselves into more of a niche market.
I could be TOTALLY wrong about all of this and in 20 years everyone will be staying at Airbnbs. But I don't like those combination factors.
Wow! Thanks for taking so much trouble to try and get me to understand. I've made progress, and you've got me to think about areas I hadn't considered. I still don't quite understand the corruption and house prices thing, but perhaps because I lack your experience in that direction ... er, on the law side, naturally! I'm such an innocent. I'm the sort of person nobody has ever tried to sell drugs to!
Cheers
... it also may be because I'm not a great fan of tax. Since I disapprove of huge amounts of expenditure, on military enterprises e.g. I regard a large percentage of taxation as theft. I'm guessing that the illegality you're referring to is at least partly tax evasion; and if that is so, it's probably tax I wouldn't approve of in the first place.
The raise of "professional host" and "superhost" classifications on Airbnb as well as the appearance of "homes" on Booking.com suggests that a convergence of traditional hospitality (probably less of a "hotel" type and more of a "holiday home/cottage/cabin" type is occuring.
The fact that Airbnb has also introduced all kinds of stabdards-controls and requirements also points to professionalisation of the hotel-like service provided.
On the other end of the scale, the "rent a cheap room" version of Airbnb also has a pre-internet ancestor: the locals in resort/popular holiday destinations renting rooms in season. These would originally appear at train stations where the holiday makers arrived, to be picked in a taxi-like fashion, but (in person and later on, by-phone) bureaus would emerge as middlemen. There was an understanding that such rooms would provide relatively low standards for low price.
A concept of a B&B / guest house undoubtedly emerged as a year-round evolution of that service.
"Furnished rooms" to rent long-term have been a thing for probably 150+ years, often "with family" or ways to generate income by widowed or otherwise single women wealthy enough to own a house but needing income.
Caveat: my experience is from Europe, and mostly from touristy areas. I have never encountered medium/longer term lets operated via Airbnb or anyone who used Airbnb this way.
Also footnote #6 is a big part of Bullshit Jobs. The meaningful jobs don't pay, while the high paying jobs are useless
Cliffhanger!!!