One thing I think we'll definitely see is a reduction in the amount of apartments available for rent on AirBnB. I've seen reports that after lockdowns went into place in Portland OR and SF, that there were thousands of new units listed on proper real-estate websites for long-term lease. That tells me that landlords who were taking units off the housing market and using them for short-term rentals, might have fewer AirBnB units after this is all done. For a while at least I think AirBnB will be more of the "rent a spare room in our house" units again, rather than the entire apartment in a major city that's displacing a long-term resident.

Seems like the market exists for what they offer. Even if this wipes out airbnb in the short term another company will serve the need in the long term, baring new laws. Basically you'd need to see hospitality industry lobbyists get some new laws passed murdering them as part of some sort of relief package.

I’m not a huge Airbnb fan but the hospitality lobbies are pretty crappy too. In the town I’m from they managed to make sleeping in your car a pretty serious crime.

Where do you live?

Which is not unthinkable since everywhere new laws are passed now

I think a lot of these answers are missing the point. I agree, AirBnB won't die, and they'll be able to grow back into a solid business when this all over.

However, AirBnB's original plan was to explode into cities before governments had a chance to react, and that once governments reacted they would have an entrenched, powerful constituency (landlords) who would help fight for them at the local level.

That advantage is now gone. All cities now have a strong opinion over whether they think AirBnB is a good thing, so as this pandemic nears completion there will be plenty of cities who will outright ban AirBnB, and any disruption that may have previously been caused by this action before coronavirus is now a moot point.

We operate 2 units out of our home. They were converted from rentals. They were REALLY crappy rentals though and essentially illegal to rent out anymore - lacking access to laundry facilities, kitchens, etc. But they are comfortable and spacious and in a nice part of town, so they have made excellent Airbnbs.

Housing shortages in our area are a huge problem - any apartment complex proposal dies in city hall, so they are essentially banned. The only source of new units are hotels. Our units are slightly more expensive than renting, but still an amazing deal over an equivalent hotel. And a quarter of the cost goes to local taxes (we're taxed at a higher rate than the hotels, btw).

Coronavirus has dropped Airbnb rates across the board - but occupancy has been about the same (market pricing in action). We have noticed a ton more interest in long term rentals (a. because it's so cheap, and b. a lot of people have bizarre living situations right now), so if anything income is a lot more consistent right now.

Airbnb's cut isn't that affected. It's still bizarre how much they make off of a unit considering how little they provide. Their insurance never pays out - their website and app are embarrassingly bad.

>It's still bizarre how much they make off of a unit considering how little they provide. Their insurance never pays out - their website and app are embarrassingly bad.

Then stop using them. There are plenty of other options.

I live in touristy city, and I wish nothing more than to see Airbnb crash and die.

Finding rent here is mission impossible, most landlords will happily rent to you for a contract that ends at the start of the summer, then you have to figure out where to live for 3 months.

Housing prices are impossibly expensive compared to local salaries, and landlords would rather keep a place empty for an occasional airbnb than have a full-time tenant (that has a lot of legal protection regarding eviction).

My prediction is that this summer season is dead, and that many places will go back to regular renting, I hope they never go back to Airbnb again.

Have you worked with your city government to champion legislation to heavily regulate short term rentals?

If not, please do!

A number of local candidates ran on the platform of housing reform. They don't get elected.

Are your local officials not amiable to aggressive short term rental regulation implementation? Housing reform can mean many things.

I agree, AirBnB is an unsustainable business and I would also like to see it regulated out of existence. It is extremely classist. Only something that middle class or higher can use while reducing housing availability which primarily impacts lower classes.

How is it something only classists can use? I use Airbnb _because_ it is cheap, usually significantly cheaper than hotels when visiting cities. I use it to save money because I am cost conscious. A lot of lower-income friends also use Airbnb because of this very reason. It has been a lifesaver for us.

You're a tourist going to another city on vacation or other reasons. You're middle class and thus part of the problem for the lower class people of that city.

I'm sorry, this is a fantastically ignorant and entitled statement. Poor people often need to travel.

I say this as somebody who grew up firmly poor and was even homeless with my entire family for a time.

We are talking about the majority of the reason why people use Airbnb. It's used as a replacement for hotels for people on vacation.

Of course having a cheap place to stay for people who can't afford hotels when they're traveling is a necessity. That role was traditionally filled by hostels and I'm not sure if Airbnb is a good replacement for that when you look at all the downsides.

When my family was homeless, we would have killed to have had the security of an AirBnB available back then. Instead we stayed in a number of different places, many of which were downright dangerous.

After we clawed our way out of poverty, my parents were unable to afford to take our family anywhere for over a decade. The first family vacation we ever took we slept in the car and brought all of our own food. Poor people need to take a break also and this terrible vacation was blessed luxury from multiple jobs, daily danger and sickness, and grinding poverty.

My extended family is also spread all over thousands of miles as jobs were to be had. A simple visit to meet grandparents, or to meet cousins or other family is not a middle class problem. Poor people have families and loved ones as well.

I'm going to say this as respectfully as I can -- you don't know what it means to be poor with unstable housing, and you should think more about speaking for poor people, what you perceive to be their needs, and should stop scolding other people for not being poor.

Thanks for assuming my background. Rest assured I grew up in poverty that few have experienced, even in the third world country where I grew up.

Moreover, i don't really care about your lived experience and I don't think you should care about mine either - I think in these types of discussions its better to take a statistical approach and see the effect of Airbnb at a societal scale - its the only way to make just decisions that aren't short sighted.

Because it removes the place from the rental market. We're not talking about people holidaying; this is about having access to a roof over your head in your daily life.

Here’s an alternative point of view: If you’re cosy-conscious; then don’t travel. Many places would be much better without a constant onslaught of poor tourists.

It’s a luxury only for the wealthy? My parents went on walkabout through the 60s and 70s dragging their kids behind them (starting about age 3, and not even two for my sister) and it was great. All over South and Southeast Asia and Western Europe. We certainly saw the countries in ways that would have been invisible had we been staying in luxury hotels, or spent the whole of the first 15 years of my life in Australia.

Nobody asks you to pay for a _luxury_ hotel, by the way.

Also today for me it seems that renting a cheap AirBnb is akin to making photos of yourself next to sedated tigers/elephants/you name it - it does the same to erode the local culture.

I don't get that argument. Going by your logic, housing itself is classist because people who aren't at least in the middle class can't afford houses much of the time. And maybe it is, but then what? Are we supposed to abolish classism because some people are less fortunate?

I can give you an example. A cheap-to-rent apartment in a central part of an old popular city in Europe, is now a pricy Airbnb.

This means that students, young families, people with lower income have to move out of a suburb they we born, studied, have friends, etc. And now have to find a place elsewhere on the outskirts, where tourists don't want to go.

This is apart from arriving at your buildings front door and having some stranger stand behind you while you turn the key.. a very irritating situation.

Airbnb makes the problem 10-20% worse, but almost no cities are building net positive housing compared to their growth. People getting priced out will continue to happen with or without Airbnb, until cities take housing seriously and build more.

I think the idea that that apartment was cheap-to-rent is likely a stretch. It was likely a middling apartment that got upclassed. Low income housing in the bad part of town doesn't really show up on Airbnb.

That's right. Only the middle class can afford houses, so the lower classes live in apartments. And what happens when the middle class takes the apartments as well? Should the less fortunate build shanty towns to live in?

This isn't about people monopolizing some conveniences; access to housing is a human right (article 25), which is why governments regulate it.

Leasing property should be out of the hands of regular regular folks because regular folks don't know how to handle it ethically. I define regular folks as pretty much anyone not heavily regulated for ethical performance.

The problem with leasing property is that once you've bought the property to lease, you the landlord (good god the feudal nature of the word itself should be setting off alarm bells) are now in possession of a basic need of humans (shelter) that you can dole out as you please. This property is also fairly easy to manage without it going down in flames so the next step is maximizing your own comfort at the top of your middle-class existence at the cost of some poor other unfortunate. This poor other unfortunate must clamber up to the top of the shit-pile racing against time as you bleed them dry so they too can afford a property to squeeze out the next unfortunate.

It's a pyramid scheme of the worst kind. But its practice is widespread and common enough that we don't bat an eye. And you don't have to look far to see abuses everywhere veiled in legal frameworks. My wife, for example, was recently thrown out of a Scandinavian country because we didn't have a strong enough case for residency. Her landlords were a man and a wife both very well-off living downstairs. We thought it was an amicable living arrangement until, on moving out, they politely informed her she'd be paying two months of rent after her departure to "give them enough time to find a replacement". This was in a city swarming with desperate people willing to kill their pet if it meant they could be move in the same day. My own experiences with landlords in the US have been of the same awful caliber.

We, as human beings, have allowed these abuses because there are no sufficient checks and balances to our own greed. It's all Self-first and damn the others. I feel a kind of hollowness eating me out from the inside every day I get a little older wondering where the Hell we all went wrong.

Can you name and shame the country?

Norway, specifically the city of Høvik, which is practically a part of Oslo being as close as it is to the Oslo city center.

It depends on what you think the best use of housing is. Is housing meant to "make money for the owner" or "provide housing for people?"

There, I've just taken class out of the equation. Your answer?

Are clothes meant to “make money for manufacturers” or “provide warmth for people”

Is food meant to “make money for producers” or “provide nutrition for people”

None of these things are mutually exclusive. Otherwise, where do you draw the line?

The problem is "Housing" is not simply a consumable like food or (mostly) clothes.

The owner can consume the housing or rent it. But if it's not used to house people, then is it really housing? Or just real estate?

Best use of housing is whatever the owner think its best for. There is no single answer.

The best use of housing is what the government defines, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (specifically, article 25) for all United Nations members.

Disagree, government interest is not be universal.

> abolish classism

Do you think that is the fairest interpretation of your opponents argument?

> Only something that middle class or higher can use

I think it's more nuanced than that. I've stayed in AirBnBs that were clearly being run as a major source of income by people who otherwise didn't have many options for income (remote areas, Native reservations, etc.). I remember staying in a spare structure in the Navajo nation a few years back, it was run by an elderly couple who were looking after their 3 granddaughters and literally had no other way to make income to support themselves or the girls. They said AirBnB and a prepaid cell phone had literally turned around their entire economic situation.

Separately, it has enabled many of my friends who are on the lower end of the economic spectrum to afford to go places with their family as AirBnBs are usually cheaper than hotels and generally larger and often include kitchens (further saving costs eating out while traveling). One of my friends in particular (in his 40s) took his first out-of-state family vacation ever due to this. Before this they never ventured further than a few hours drive from where they lived because they simply couldn't afford it.

I also entirely agree that they need to be better regulated, and that they can have a deleterious effect on local housing prices. Japan seems to have taken some serious steps towards finding a good balance of regulation and availability for these things. On a trip to Japan we stayed in hotels and AirBnBs and in every case the BnBs were cheaper, larger, and generally better than the hotels. However, they're only allowed to use them as short-term rentals for 180 days per year, must be licensed and have other restrictions on when they can be used. [1]

I don't know if Japan's approach is the right one, but the number of AirBnBs available in Japan make me think that it hasn't destroyed the legitimate marketplace for this type of side income (where AirBnB is at its best) while also making it much harder for people to soak up the local rental market as speculators with "accommodations" being used to reduce risk in their investment portfolio.

1 - https://www.asiaone.com/asia/airbnb-says-forced-cancel-booki...

Sure it is, the market pressure redefines, what is low-class housing. Local middle-class unable to compete with international tourists splurging for a couple of days have to go for formerly low-class housing.

You haven't done much backpacking have you.

I think the part of the sentence missing in your quote ("while reducing housing availability which primarily impacts lower classes") explains his stance.

Usually businesses catering to the upper classes don't usually do so at the detriment of "the poor". For example Ferrari selling 100k+ cars doesn't prevent me from buying a cheap car. Homeowners renting to "rich people" prevents a poor person from renting the same apartment.

This could of course happen with regular rentals, but the difference is that nobody would pay above market rates for a long-term rental, which is what basically happens with Airbnb.

Why do you say it's "above market" when there's a market for it?

I mean "above the rates of the long-term rental market".

I think the argument is that Airbnb and similar take those apartments from the long-term rental market and put them on the (very) short-term rental market, aka the hotels'.

The problem put forward by those arguing against Airbnb is that this is a zero-sum game. If you have tourists who are able and willing to pay more for a flat (aka "middle or higher class"), this reduces housing availability for "the lower classes".

You could, of course, argue that this would be true even without Airbnb if enough "higher class" people wanted to live in a given city all of a sudden. I suppose that's why people also tend to be against gentrification.

If I build a factory that dumps toxic sludge into the water supply, that’s not sustainable and yet it might be quite profitable in the absence of regulation.

Airbnb doesn't have massive uninternalized externalities. The preconditions of the Coase theorem are pretty close to being met when it comes to house rental.

> than have a full-time tenant (that has a lot of legal protection regarding eviction)

This sounds like a pretty convincing argument against laws that are extremely lopsided in favor of tenants. If you make renting out property an extremely high-risk proposition, of course property owners are going to prefer something less risky.

I have to disagree there.

Feeling safe in your rented apartment from unjustified evictions, doubling rent without notice, or landlord trespassing etc.. is an absolute must.

I am safer from all of those things living in a ~completely deregulated housing market than I ever was living in the highly regulated NYC housing market. I couldn't change my apartment keys in NY, but that's expected here in Hong Kong. And how do you define "unjustified eviction"? The criteria for eviction and rent changes are clearly spelled out in the 2 or 3 page contract I signed for my apartment here, unlike the multi-hundred-page legalese nightmare I signed in NYC (once again, thanks to the overbearing "tenant protection" laws).

Most places make it at the end of your current contract you automatically go month to month. They cannot kick you out.

I hope not and if it does, I hope Kamernet goes down with it. Your company is taxing students for essentially nothing but an introduction. And it has been doing that for decades. Not that I would normally mind your existence, but I do now I hear what you are hoping and likely lobbying for.

I think you can make a reasonable case that, if we have a recession, it will be OK for Airbnb. Maybe even good for them.

During a recession, people look for ways to economize, and one way is to downgrade housing. For example, people who did live alone will get a roommate, people will move to a smaller place, and some younger people will move back in with their parents.

If this does happen, then occupancy rates (for normal leases, not short-term rentals) will drop in many places, making landlords more interested in alternative ways to fill empty units. That could work in Airbnb's favor.

In a recession, people would also have less disposable income for travel. That will hurt Airbnb but it could also help them because travelers could prefer it as a cheaper alternative to a hotel. During recessions, budget-oriented businesses (like discount stores) tend to do better.

airbnb has no serious liabilities, in terms of real estate, on their balance sheets.

if they can go cockroach mode, and reduce spending (should be easy with discipline and layoffs), they’ll still be a multi billion dollar company in 2021-2022.

and i say this thinking they’re ultimately a cancer on society.

Contrast this with WeWork, where people have been raising concerns about its business model (short-term revenues and long-term lease liabilities) from its inception.

WeWork is dead. The main question now is what specific necromancy the venture capitalists will be performing on its corpse.

There's nothing wrong with, or unusual about, the business model. Short-term revenues and long-term liabilities is how every other real estate company operates. It's also how every bank operates.

Banks are required to keep 10% of deposits in reserve and pay into a deposit insurance system. The FDIC can shut banks down or put them under control of another in a crisis.

yup, airbnb is almost the inverse of wework, and is way more of a tech company too.

Now I find myself wishing Max Gladstone would feature venture capitalism in his next Craft Sequence book.

I think people have been raising the fundamental moral hazards, lack of business viability and externality problems of gig economy / “marketplace” startups for a long time. But braindead rich people who want to believe in unicorns still pour money into saccharine VC fake shit, giving people of deplorable moral status huge piles of cash, sociopathic ego-stroking soap boxes to stand on, and every incentive to pursue regulatory capture strategies as temporary props to lever up an IPO and foist the inevitable market correction losses onto unwitting regular people who come to own toxic business stocks through dark patterns in their retirement plans with “target date” mixes and automatic adjustments hard to opt out of.

At some level you have to be angry at consumers who use and defend these businesses, and be angry at employees who agree to work for them and smugly believe it’s all untouchable becuz tech.

If you are an engineer for Airbnb, Bird, Uber, Lyft, etc., you are the problem.

You have to be responsible for the business model of the jobs you take. What is the value proposition? Not just internal to the company, but to the external world.

Until rank and file engineers start saying no to these jobs, nothing is going to get better. We have to say no to horrible working conditions like open plan offices, braindead infantilizing office spaces where video games and catered lunches matter more than basic health benefits, severance pay, and work life balance.

It’s not going to get better until we just refuse to participate in these sham businesses and we stop glorifying some manifest destiny founder trope as if it’s worthy of admiration or good for the world.

Many countries already require you to provide an address when entering (for visa-free visits) or when applying for a visa. This is not a new phenomenon.

We will probably see a cursory medical test at borders. This will become more complex over time as the technology develops.

Cities (and tax-paying hosts) make a ton of tax revenue from AirBnb, much of which wouldn’t otherwise exist. I don’t expect any total shutdowns.

> Cities (and tax-paying hosts) make a ton of tax revenue from AirBnb

Aha, sure. They pay next to nothing in tax in Europe. Some individuals pay more tax than airbnb while making 10 times less money.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

That’s why I included tax-paying hosts. Presumably individuals pay taxes on their hosting earnings, and individual tax rates are often higher than corporate ones.

Thanks for your insights. I think the tax and tourist income from AirBnB is less than what this form of tourism is costing the city, if measuring correctly. There were several studies published about this recently.

I am curious. What are the costs you have in mind? How are they different from tourists who stay in cheaper hotels?

Ask Barcelona. They're seeing issues with it driving up rental prices, and pushing the actual locals out of the city as landlords realize they can make more money using their properties for AirBnB, with little-to-no regulation, than they can leasing long-term. It also makes others who live in complexes dominated by AirBnB want to move, as tourists really don't care about how they behave and often come in at all hours of the night drunk and loud, and changes the neighborhod itself as businesses change to cater to the new tourists in the area as opposed to locals.

Hotels are specific buildings that aren't part of the real estate market that is let to ordinary locals, whereas AirBnB is. Plus, hotels are generally concentrated in specific areas of the city, and so don't ruin local neighborhoods.

A cursory medical test at the border? I’d vote against that.

They're included in the bailout package that just passed [1] so no they're not going anywhere.

1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-27/a-guide-t...

Only for temporary worker benefits. That's not much for Airbnb like, say Uber.

This is pretty absurd as your hypothesis makes no sense. The drive for revenue is going to override any government demand for oversight. Any government stupid enough to put up this would kill tourism which is the lifeblood of many cities. Money speaks and I don't see any government enacting this anywhere irrespective of AirBnb being there or not.

Now for Airbnb I am taking the reverse and contraion position that they will actually come out this ahead of most hospitality companies. Simple they don't own any assets and have the ability to ratchet down or up depending on the macro-environment. Also let's be honest here is that host will come back as its a another way for them to monetize their assets especially the economic situation right now.

I'd prefer to see a revival of multi-family homes. It feels like there needs to be a middle ground for people who can afford to buy multiple houses but can't afford to buy apartment complexes.

"Investors" taking away from the single-family market in order to have airbnb-style rentals probably wasn't at the forefront of the founders' minds when they started it but they've done nothing to try to bring attention to it and the impact it is having on people who are ready to make the move from being a renter to being a homeowner.

Just sharing my friend experience, she had to end her exchange study early from Europe (due to recent escalation) and back to Taiwan. My friend however, wasn't a Taiwanese and require a place for her 14 days self isolation. She ended up finding an Airbnb willing to host her during the self isolation period (hotel usually have a central ventilation which isn't optimal for self isolation).

Nope, their main money drain is people and people that they don't really need at that.

Does it take the thousands of people they have to support a couple of apps and a website + user support? No.

You were already given some nice answers. Mind you, in many countries, a huge chunk of AirBnB stays are domestic not international.

If quarantine measures are lifted, it means that Corona is out so why would the government want to track tourists more?

I don't see why they would since their expenses are essentially marketing and R&D. And they've stopped marketing and instituted a hiring freeze. Perhaps some layoffs might happen but I highly doubt that this is a death sentence for them more than Expedia et. al.

Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...

That s mostly an issue for airports, and health officials, cities cant expect all landlords to test their tenants regularly. Airbnb owns no properties, they ll go in recess and probably scale down but i see no reason it s the “end”

In thr meanwhile, it will be transformed to a platform for normal, long term rents

(If anything, trusted, and possibly provably tested renters from airbnb will be preferred )