He states it clearly in the article: because many women will use the law against to you try an extort money from you. It's well known that the court is heavily biased towards women in any "man vs women" case.
It's not housing-as-a-good that's a problem it's the land.
Land owners didnt create the land. Rights to land are always acquired, ultimately, through violence.
Land owners dont make it valuable - a good teacher drives up her own rent.
Supply and demand work in reverse. The more land owners buy and hoard it the more valuable it becomes.
Unlike, say, income taxes, which discourage work, taxing land just discourages hoarding and unproductive use. Higher taxes would thus relieve shortages on top of bolstering government budgets.
Airbnb isnt a direct cause of those shortages, it just partook in the rent bonanza driven by the global property hoarding frenzy. Banning or strictly regulating it in tourist hotspots is probably a good idea but doesnt resolve the underlying problem.
Living in a city heavily impacted by it, I couldn't agree more. People love it, because they feel entitled as tourists to live like locals, at the expense of the actual locals. It's literally all about entitlement, while forcing the negative externalities on the community you came to visit! Outta sight, outta mind.
Tourists don't "feel entitled", they rent apartments because hotels and guesthouses are full, or the price is cheaper, or they think the price is cheaper. Tourists have no blame in this - they book what is on offer.
And on top of that there's nothing in renting an AirBnB that provides a "local" experience. It's an ego-based illusion of experiencing the local life at best.
Many small cities we visit have apartments (Airbnb's) near the city center where it's walkable whereas hotels/motels are often in less walkable parts of the city. For me that makes for a more "local" experience.
And I guess you yourself are the exception in that you are entitled to living in a tourist-free city, and all the tourist-dependent businesses in your area and all the tourists that want to visit can go to hell?
Maybe we should just build enough housing for everyone.
I think the resentment comes from the fact that, for many large cities, the tourism aspect is a very small part of the city. Take for example the city I grew up in - Edinburgh. Tourism contributes £1.3bn to the cities economy, but the city has a GDP of £26bn. So tourism is 5% of GDP, yet it has a completely disproportionate impact on the city centre.
If you play "count the lockboxes" in the centre you realise almost every flat in the centre is an AirBnB. Those flats take in 4x what a normal rented flat will make, so of course there's a strong incentive for landlords to rent on AirBnB. Right now the city is going through a huge housing shortage - people are having to defer degree courses or live outside the city because they literally can't find anywhere to rent.
Of course, tourists aren't the only cause of this. There's a huge intergenerational issue (I know countless people in their 60s living in very large houses), and the city has historically been very conservative about building new houses to match population growth.
Ultimately the city is owned and run mostly by the people who live there. Most of them have no choice about the level of tourism, and it's pretty reasonable to want to have a discussion about whether you really want to have your city turned into a theme park.
> the city has historically been very conservative about building new houses to match population growth.
This is the main problem. Solution is simple: Allow more new construction, lots of it.
Local people have voted against their own long term interests, if they have voted for politicians who have opposed new construction.
It is easy to succumb to short term selfishness: "I already have a home, so I don't want any new construction near me. I oppose building new homes." But in time, every one of us will need to move to a new home. Then you will start to wish that if you had supported building new homes, it would be easier for you, too, to find a new home.
It's an inherent problem in tourism: tourists want an "unspoiled" view, which means not building infrastructure for tourists or locals.
Building definitely is happening. See the Plan: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/25264/edinburgh-... - but of course you can't build just houses, you have to build roads and schools and waste disposal and public transport to go with them. The city has struggled with its tram project and the railways are at capacity.
When the younger generation takes over, I predict a massive wave of construction globally. Most millennials have had it up to here both with high rent and the anti-development I've-already-got-my-own-house crowd that caused it.
And I'll be the old guy yelling about it in the street. I've lived in the same town for most of my life, so I've seen it metastasize across the countryside, gobbling up farmland, wildlife habitat and open spaces, replacing them with McMansions, apartment buildings and Costcos, just to make room for more ... frikken ... people. It's like watching your best high school friend turn into a junkie whore before your eyes.
I don't know what the answer is, but there is something to be said for retaining some beauty at the expense of fewer people, and maybe rethinking the idea that growth is necessary to success, 'cause we're running out of room and that definition can't last forever.
This issue has been solved very well in other countries with
medium and high-density construction. Many US communities feel overcrowded because they are low-density.
Yeah I think you're right there, at least to a degree. So many American towns have really crappy zoning laws that limit the amount of high density construction, even though it's awesome for a tax base (especially if you allow for mixed use areas (which has the double benefit of helping mitigate food deserts)).
Literally the old guy yelling in the street, so yeah, drama much and much drama.
What you say is true, and also isn't anything new to the discussion. Change is awesome, and isn't even the point. It's more about the unsustainable quest for growth that is the foundation of our economy.
That's a complete narcissistic take. Other people are crowding your view? Would it be possible for you to understand that you take up as much space as any other person? That you are crowding their view? "At the expense of fewer people" - do you want to start killing your fellow man?
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, maybe the "narcissistic" part. Nah man I don't know what the answer is, only that I see the destruction happening. There has to be a more sustainable way to manage growth.
No you don’t. Investors and speculators want to rent it out, giving young people without credit scores and saved-up capital housing options.
Even speculators who buy and hold empty houses aren’t a problem. No investor is satisfied with no returns (ie, no sale and no rent) indefinitely. Speculators that are dumb enough to be happy with zero returns ought to be, and always are, separated from their capital.
Within a short time the market will balance out between the builders, the buy-to-let landlords, the single-family owners, and the flippers and speculators… assuming you don’t have some crazy regulations putting a thumb on the single-family owner end of the scale by blocking construction.
This is the real kicker. If Venice turns into a tourist Disneyland I’d feel a bit bad for the people who had lived there, but maybe it would be for the best.
But if downtowns of cities are being hollowed out and filled with tourists, it’s not going to go well for anyone - because eventually even the tourists won’t really want to be there anymore.
Too right. Glasgow is cracking down on new AirBnBs but not hard enough in my opinion. A city is for the people that live and work there, primarily. Tourism should be supported, but in almost no case should it take priority over making the city itself better for the people that have made it their home.
It has nothing to do with tourists visiting. It's tourists taking up the local housing. Tourists are planned into any good urban planning -- but they're not expected to stay in the residential areas, especially while the local residents are getting hurt because of it.
The issue isn't tourists, it's where they're staying. Tourists are welcome, they're not entitled to live like 'locals' at the local's expense. Stay in a hotel.
> Maybe we should just build enough housing for everyone.
Except that won't ever be enough because more and more will just come. And there's already even a glut on AirBnB for tourists, so none of that housing will go the locals. Building isn't the only solution.
That's fair. From a tourist's point of view, hotels suck, and houses are much better. Home owners also have the right to rent out their houses, as limited by the zoning.
I maintain that the issue can be fixed with more development - build a new tourist zone with hotels that appeal, or AirBnB friendly zoning, or something like that. And for locals, more housing = more options. The local housing can be built outside tourist zones if it has to.
The fact is we have a growing population, a growing global economy, tons of people exiting poverty and entering the global middle class and travelling. This will all accelerate for hundreds of years to come.
Hotels suck only to those buying into the relatively recent religion "live like locals" and they are not that many percentage-wise. Most of the AirBnB customers go there hoping for lower prices and that's all there is. Tax the hosts like the hotels are taxed, make them offer the same services the hotels are offering, and I'm sure the main problem will be solved. I say only the main problem because Venice will be Venice and the increase in tourists numbers will be felt either way, so at some point the bigger issue will need to be discussed: should we limit the number of tourists? Sell them time schedule tickets or something? Venice has this discussion already.
Hotels suck for other reasons. If you're travelling as a group you often don't want to have separate hotel rooms with no shared space. If you're travelling as a family you might have kids that need to go to bed before you. There's much more of a trend to build serviced apartments now - which solve most of those issues.
Exactly. I rent houses and apartments because they have kitchens to cook in, a patio to hang laundry on or relax on, a separate bedroom for the kids, they allow dogs, and it's the same price as a hotel. If hotels start sucking less they can take the business back.
> Tourists are welcome, they're not entitled to live like 'locals' at the local's expense. Stay in a hotel.
I feel this is an artificial distinction. It's not really the type of building that's involved. People tend to pick whichever of AirBnB or hotel is the most economical for their stay. It's the massive conversion of property from residential to "hotel" by the (often local!) owners that's the problem.
If there only was some type of accommodation offering rooms to tourists right there where they want to go but respecting the local laws and regulations... maybe we could call them "hotels" or something.
There is (was?) a missing middle that Airbnb was nice for - “family” - but once you start looking into it you realize that cities do quite a bunch of thought into hotel location and connecting them to transport, in ways that quieter residences aren’t built for.
And neither should focus on just „build more houses“ or „grow more tons of food“. Both must be high quality in terms of (mental) health as well as environment.
Yeah. Anyone who is blessed with this kind of motivation needs to quit their job and work full time on "being productive" toward their own goals. As someone with technical skills they have a high-leverage opportunity as a maker and builder. They shouldn't waste it by selling it to someone else for pennies on the dollar.
Granted if you have a family to provide for, and a life outside work, then you might be "working to live," and entrepreneurship is a needless risk that won't bring additional satisfaction. But if you're at the point that you're stressing over your productivity during the three hours of time you have to yourself each day, then that probably means you don't have much of a life outside work anyway. So it would be better to eliminate the work that is draining your energy, and replace it with pursuit of your own goals. Then you'll have those three hours to yourself, and you'll have spent the whole day being productive. It will be a net gain overall.
The first step is realizing that the risk of quitting your job is much lower than you think. Once you come to terms with that, it will be much easier to quit and begin building something important to you. There are so many opportunities for builders to produce value, raise money, get customers, and generally make themselves more useful, and therefore more fulfilled, than they ever could be while working for someone else. Take advantage of those opportunities while you can. If you fail, try again, or worst case scenario you can revert to your wage slavery.
> The first step is realizing that the risk of quitting your job is much lower than you think.
With a SAHM wife, three kids under ten, a home, an investment property, and several other loans & liabilities, I'd say that the risks are considerable, especially given that neither my wife nor I have any family to fall back on.
I would be more generous and I think he's very much aware of it, since he wrote about how awful his commute is. It's a nearly insurmountable obstacle for most folks.
Same. Working in almost hours of the day can burn us out, especially with the intellectual jobs in IT industry.
Mental health should be more concerned and the "work-life balance" term needs to be brought to the discussion. Also, do not let the "overthinking" in.
By the way, I'm doing my 9-to-5 job for several years as a software engineer and still learning new stuff everyday. It's not the best but I'm enjoying my life. Just relax. =))
Spare me. Private medicine is a disaster, private utilities are disasters where they are tried, private roads are a disaster.
Governments screw a lot of things up. So do private companies. Arguing about which is better in the abstract is like arguing whether even or odd numbers are “better”: only possible for tribalists.
1. There’s a lot of backlash against Twitter’s new owner for his change in editorial policy. Users or tweets that would have been previously removed are no longer being censored. On a government-run platform protected by the first amendment, no censorship would be permitted. That’s mean you would have, for better or worse, a ton of racist content, conspiracy theories, violent images, pornographic images, and fake news.
2. There’s a lot of concern of data security and privacy. If you don’t trust Zuckerberg with your data, would you trust the government?
3. People flock to services that other people widely use. There are numerous social network alternatives these days, but people still flock to the major ones like FB, IG, TikTok, etc. Would anyone want to use FedBook? I have my doubts that a government-run social media platform would gain any real traction.
Because they operated on the free market around them, forcing them to have good quality or they wouldn't get paid.
I lived in communism where the state owned practically everything - and everything, not just the food, was shit, and you couldn't get it anyways, we didn't even have toilet paper. Don't get me started on women's hygienic accessories. The recommendation from government was to use old newspaper - because propaganda is more important than hygiene, right?
> The recommendation from government was to use old newspaper
Ahhh, that takes me back. I was only there until the age of 8 or so, but I vividly remember our stack of newspaper squares. And, of course, you can't flush them so you have to put them in a bin (and presumably empty the bin, but I wasn't there for that part). Also we only had running water part of the day so we had to store some up in buckets for peak times. It seemed normal at the time, but looking back it's fucking crazy.
Idk, you seemed to be claiming that communism works, I'm telling you it doesn't and that your example is true only because of the free market around these communist-owned restaurants. That's it.
Edit because I can't reply: because I hate it when people say that communism works even though they never lived through it and have no idea what it actually is to live in it. It's terrible, an entire country of multiple millions of humans is condemned to horrible life. Don't do it, there is enough examples of how bad it is already.
We're talking about experiences of hundreds of millions of people (most of whom don't speak English and don't frequent US forums but they still exist). Yes, their experience can predict the future. Communism always and very quickly failed and then became (or simply started as) oligarchist dictatorship.
Since mice are not humans the gender of the mice might be irrelevant.
So much nutritional studies have been done on animals and yet we know that different animals react totaly different to eg saturated fats and atherosclerosis.
Animals are a garbage proxy for anything human related.
Unfortunately, with political correctness these days, people start whining about "ethics" and "human rights" when you experiment on human brains (fnord).
Depending on what you define as 'experiment', there's quite some recent neuroscience research using invasive techniques in humans. Which as far as I'm aware is approved by an ethical committee, but that's not quite the same as 'whining' :)
Well there's a potential paper right there. Take male/female researcher and pump them full of hormones and see if it also affects the mice behaviour too.
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Gender isn’t a real thing biologically, it is a societal construct. It describes human behavior. So the gender role of the researcher can’t possibly have an effect on the experiment as it is imaginary. Only the sex of the researcher is what can trigger a response, as there is a biological basis.
> Since mice are not humans the gender of the mice might be irrelevant.
Actually, it's not. It's well known that medications can have different effects or different dosage requirements depending on menstrual cycle.
And if you drop out a drug candidate in animal trials because you don't account for genetic and hormonal gender as well as menstrual cycle, you can end up dropping prematurely.
