airbnb - what can you tell me...

Conrad

CLAPTON wrote: »

they seem an excellent example of the benefits of increased competition, providing accommodation for people that want it and income for those that let their property

True, they can benefit those with a home to let, in other words capital.


I'm no socialist but there is I think greater and greater capital in the hands of the few, such as the owners of airbnb and Uber at the expense of workers with incomes disrupted / removed


I'm a classic example - lucky to have some properties, so others pay my mortgages for me just because I own capital. Pensions are simply a diversion of profits produce by workers for the holders of pension capital. If it carries on this way there's going to be a revolution.

Pennywise

Conrad wrote: »

airbnb and Uber are prime examples of capitalism - that is to say capital in the hands of a few being deployed to extract income from the pockets of many workers (so a handful of elite dudes in California getting sticking rich by dipping into every other London cab fare, reducing cabbies income)

I'd say the opposite re Air BNB. Up until the last few years, if I'd wanted a short break in a city, I'd stay in a hotel. Most hotels are owned by huge international groups, often by venture capitalists or millionnaire families. Now, with Air BNB, holiday letting websites etc, I stay in privately owned apartments, owned by "normal" people, so surely that's better in that it's normal people benefitting rather than hedge funds and rich venture capitalists.

Same with taxis. If you wanted a "hackney" licence to be able to pick up fares on the street (without pre booking) it used to cost a shed load of cash for the local authority licence (often £30k upwards). Again, that meant it was the relatively richer people who could afford it, who would often use lowly paid drivers to actually do the driving. Private hire (pre booked) was always a cheaper entry into the trade, but you needed an "office" to take calls/bookings etc and again, the richer people were the ones who could afford to set it up, pay the radio network, employ the telephonists, etc., and again the driver was relatively lowly paid, the rich station owner pocketing the money for no work. Uber has opened it up, helped by mobile phones/internet which removed the need for the base station and expensive radio network.

I think these things are opening up the market for people with smaller amounts of capital.

Pennywise

Conrad wrote: »

Thanks for the input guys, I'm not minded to take this any further.

I think the point is that traditional but to let is a very passive investment activity, i.e. capital intensive and then very little ongoing work involved except the occasional clean/maintenance and 6 month tenancy renewal.

Holiday lettings have always been an active trade, to include weekly cleaning, regular maintenance, advertising, administration of bookings/deposits, etc. and many also provide other facilities such as hot-tubs, swimming pools, games rooms, etc.

So a holiday let is hands-on and much more expensive in terms of running costs etc., so a completely different scenario to passive rental. Also, there will be lots of void periods between lets. So overall, higher rental rates, but offset by fewer days let and much higher overheads.

Modern websites have facilitated shorter stays and last minute bookings. In the old days, you'd book from a catalogue or magazine advert and it would usually be for a minimum of 1 or 2 weeks, booked months in advance. Modern websites have made the advertising/booking process much quicker/simpler, so it's made shorter stays and last minute bookings far easier.

Looking on Airbnb it is clear to see which are professional and let out as holiday lets as a trade, i.e. never lived in by the owner, and which are temporary and lived in also by the owner, on a more amateurish basis. I only ever book the professional ones which are usually cleaner and have more modern/working equipment etc.

Conrad

Pennywise wrote: »

Same with taxis. If you wanted a "hackney" licence to be able to pick up fares on the street (without pre booking) it used to cost a shed load of cash for the local authority licence (often £30k upwards). Again, that meant it was the relatively richer people who could afford it, who would often use lowly paid drivers to actually do the driving.

Black Cabbing was a classic way working class people of humble origins built really good lives - we had a few in the area I grew up - with big detached houses etc and I've had plenty as clients


Now we have a handful of already rich elites in California taking 25% of every London fare and black cabby's earning considerably less - the precise globalisation so many rail against now


Classic case of a few with capital taking away income for the many


Uber drivers are poorly paid




Surely airbnb is taking away the incomes of the travel agents and similar - another example of high streets being degraded in favour of a few rich elite shareholders at airbnb? Not so cut n dried though as you point out

CLAPTON

Conrad wrote: »

True, they can benefit those with a home to let, in other words capital.


I'm no socialist but there is I think greater and greater capital in the hands of the few, such as the owners of airbnb and Uber at the expense of workers with incomes disrupted / removed


I'm a classic example - lucky to have some properties, so others pay my mortgages for me just because I own capital. Pensions are simply a diversion of profits produce by workers for the holders of pension capital. If it carries on this way there's going to be a revolution.

with airbnb you need a spare room and the willingness to clean it and present it well: you don't actually need to own it.

I don't really see how airbnb is an example of concentrating business in the hands of the few, as the basis of the 'complaints ' about it is that the "many" are offering rooms.

paddyrg

I think security is pretty awful seeing as your property keys get shared with the world + dog. I stayed at a serviced apartment (not actually AirBnB but similar), great price but I didn't feel safe. The front door code was *0005, I was in apartment 3 (of 4), the front door code for it was *0003. Bet I can guess what the other apartment codes were! But even if they'd coded the rooms with more wisdom, I can still use *0005 and *0003 to go straight back into that same apartment any time. No security, no reception to call. If it had been physical keys, I could have easily cut copies and been able to do likewise - and more importantly, so could anyone else.

Yes, it was a nice flat, and the price was great, but I went back to using proper hotels with dated locks on the doors, security, front desk, etc.

cells

Conrad wrote: »

Thanks for the input guys, I'm not minded to take this any further.

I also notice other Cities such as some in Canada are having serious issue with airbnb pushing up rents, and looking to introduce regulations.

It's ironic, we were all sold on the idea the internet would unleash the sharing economy and give consumers cheaper prices but often the opposite seems true, or existing people have their livelyhoods compromised (London cabbies for example)


When I was in Singapore recently there were whole news articles dedicated to how people need to prepare for the downsides of 'intrusive technologies' that undercut incomes.

airbnb and Uber are prime examples of capitalism - that is to say capital in the hands of a few being deployed to extract income from the pockets of many workers (so a handful of elite dudes in California getting sticking rich by dipping into every other London cab fare, reducing cabbies income)

This is nonsense for so many reasons

isplumm

Pennywise wrote: »

Lots of people with furnished apartments/homes are using air BNB as an alternative to owners direct, homeandaway, etc for holiday lettings.

Hi

This is exactly what we do - we have a git in the Loire Valley, that I have put on airbnb .... this is my first year & I have had 6 nights through them.

I suspect I could get more, but that would mean dropping my price a lot, so it is not worth it.

Both the renter & the owner pay airbnb - that is how they make their money - but as it doesn't cost anything to actually put my gite on the site, so I am happy with that.

I make sure that the minimum number of nights is set to 3, cause otherwise it is not worth it.

Mark

isplumm

Pennywise wrote: »

I think the point is that traditional but to let is a very passive investment activity, i.e. capital intensive and then very little ongoing work involved except the occasional clean/maintenance and 6 month tenancy renewal.

Holiday lettings have always been an active trade, to include weekly cleaning, regular maintenance, advertising, administration of bookings/deposits, etc. and many also provide other facilities such as hot-tubs, swimming pools, games rooms, etc.

So a holiday let is hands-on and much more expensive in terms of running costs etc., so a completely different scenario to passive rental. Also, there will be lots of void periods between lets. So overall, higher rental rates, but offset by fewer days let and much higher overheads.

Hi,

We have a holiday let in the Loire Valley - it is hard work - I rent for a minimum of 3 nights, but I then need to pay for cleaning / maintenance etc - the competition is amazing - but we have managed to let for about 12 weeks this year - our 1st real year.

As you say costs are much more expensive - but you do charge far more.

Thanks Mark

onlyroz

I have a spanish work colleague who owns a flat in Peckham. When he goes back to Spain to visit family, or when he goes on holiday himself, he rents out his flat via AirBnB. He swears by it, but when I ask him about insurance he just shrugs his shoulders. What would happen if a guest burned the place down or robbed him, I have no idea...