5 ms·

And what about AirBnb? Or any of the many 'gig economy' startups that flaunt labor laws? I agree with the article. Let's not punish innovation, but let's make s

And what about AirBnb? Or any of the many 'gig economy' startups that flaunt labor laws? I agree with the article. Let's not punish innovation, but let's make sure we don't get a new normal of startups making money by breaking the law. And not just abstract policy wonk big gummint type of law, but like the things that make sure people don't get taken advantage of and are safe.

CodeWriter23 9y ago
Your expensive rent, you can thank AirBNB for that, and they should be burned to the ground. The simple fact that the author glosses over is ridesharing, despite its scofflaw roots, has been legitimized and codified into law, because it is good for people and the people want it. Whereas what we're seeing with AirBNB is legislation to strictly curtail their activity. Because their activity is bad for people, and people who are locals don't want it.
- naravara 9y ago
  >Your expensive rent, you can thank AirBNB for that My rent was expensive for years before AirBnB came on the scene. AirBnB might put some slight upward pressure on rents in markets with a lot of tourism, but it pales in comparison to the simple fact that supply does not meet demand. Thank the zoning regs and lack of transit investment in less-urban parts of your metro area.
  - CodeWriter23 9y ago
    You haven't been paying attention to rents pre-AirBNB or you do not live in a city that has a tight supply of housing.
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    Recent analysis of several real estate markets in Canada indicates that the supply side explanation for total unit cost and rental price increases is not accurate.
    - GauntletWizard 9y ago
      Canada is very different than the US - Significantly because it's much easier to buy a home as a foreign national, which has made cities like Vancouver attractive investment spots for Chinese businessmen who want to get some of their money overseas. It's shortsighted to point to one item as being "the reason", but it's equally shortsighted to ignore major American cities (Let's be real - This is HN, we're talking about SF) shortsighted development policies as major contributing factors.
- didibus 9y ago
  Where I'm front, that's solved by allowing renters to sublet. So I know ton of people who affort rent by having one room be an airbnb, or doing airbnb once a weekend.
  - PatentTroll 9y ago
    Yeah, that's fucking terrible
Jabanga 9y ago
The laws restrict the right of people to do with their labour and private property what they want. They should be left unenforced, just like laws against marijuana and other personal choices. Driving things out of the formal economy and into the informal economy, and punishing people for engaging in voluntary interactions - in the name of 'protecting' them - has very harmful unintended consequences and goes against the foundational principles of liberal democracy. Moreover, restricting voluntary economic interactions behind a wall of regulatory licensing schemes, like hotel licenses and taxi licenses, exacerbates income inequality: https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-the-1-earn-so-much-and-what-to-do-about-it/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-t... In short, there's no commonly advocated policy more harmful to society than what you're advocating.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  The laws restrict the right of people to do with their labour and private property what they want. When the choices you make with respect to the use of your property cause harm to other people or their property, they have the right to stop you and to recover damages for harm you've caused. When your voluntary transaction has involuntary (for other people) effects on others' property, they have the right to stop your transaction.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    >When the choices you make with respect to the use of your property cause harm to other people or their property, Offering something on the market, that other consenting adults voluntarily choose to buy, does not violate anyone's rights. Competitors do not have a right to dictate how consumers spend their money, so being out competed is not a violation of their rights. What you're advocating is a blatant violation of their rights based on a belief that people are entitled to other people's private property.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      If you and I each own property along a river, and I run a factory and you run a farm, and I dump waste into the river that poisons your crops and livestock, that's just me exercising my absolute right to my own property, yes? And anything you do to try to stop or punish me is you feeling entitled to my private property, yes?

CodeWriter23 9y ago

Your expensive rent, you can thank AirBNB for that, and they should be burned to the ground. The simple fact that the author glosses over is ridesharing, despite its scofflaw roots, has been legitimized and codified into law, because it is good for people and the people want it. Whereas what we're seeing with AirBNB is legislation to strictly curtail their activity. Because their activity is bad for people, and people who are locals don't want it.

naravara 9y ago
>Your expensive rent, you can thank AirBNB for that My rent was expensive for years before AirBnB came on the scene. AirBnB might put some slight upward pressure on rents in markets with a lot of tourism, but it pales in comparison to the simple fact that supply does not meet demand. Thank the zoning regs and lack of transit investment in less-urban parts of your metro area.
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  You haven't been paying attention to rents pre-AirBNB or you do not live in a city that has a tight supply of housing.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  Recent analysis of several real estate markets in Canada indicates that the supply side explanation for total unit cost and rental price increases is not accurate.
  - GauntletWizard 9y ago
    Canada is very different than the US - Significantly because it's much easier to buy a home as a foreign national, which has made cities like Vancouver attractive investment spots for Chinese businessmen who want to get some of their money overseas. It's shortsighted to point to one item as being "the reason", but it's equally shortsighted to ignore major American cities (Let's be real - This is HN, we're talking about SF) shortsighted development policies as major contributing factors.
didibus 9y ago
Where I'm front, that's solved by allowing renters to sublet. So I know ton of people who affort rent by having one room be an airbnb, or doing airbnb once a weekend.
- PatentTroll 9y ago
  Yeah, that's fucking terrible

Jabanga 9y ago

The laws restrict the right of people to do with their labour and private property what they want. They should be left unenforced, just like laws against marijuana and other personal choices. Driving things out of the formal economy and into the informal economy, and punishing people for engaging in voluntary interactions - in the name of 'protecting' them - has very harmful unintended consequences and goes against the foundational principles of liberal democracy. Moreover, restricting voluntary economic interactions behind a wall of regulatory licensing schemes, like hotel licenses and taxi licenses, exacerbates income inequality: https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-the-1-earn-so-much-and-what-to-do-about-it/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-t... In short, there's no commonly advocated policy more harmful to society than what you're advocating.

ubernostrum 9y ago
The laws restrict the right of people to do with their labour and private property what they want. When the choices you make with respect to the use of your property cause harm to other people or their property, they have the right to stop you and to recover damages for harm you've caused. When your voluntary transaction has involuntary (for other people) effects on others' property, they have the right to stop your transaction.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >When the choices you make with respect to the use of your property cause harm to other people or their property, Offering something on the market, that other consenting adults voluntarily choose to buy, does not violate anyone's rights. Competitors do not have a right to dictate how consumers spend their money, so being out competed is not a violation of their rights. What you're advocating is a blatant violation of their rights based on a belief that people are entitled to other people's private property.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    If you and I each own property along a river, and I run a factory and you run a farm, and I dump waste into the river that poisons your crops and livestock, that's just me exercising my absolute right to my own property, yes? And anything you do to try to stop or punish me is you feeling entitled to my private property, yes?