Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That’s basically what I’m doing, except with a 3 unit building in Michigan. In an average month, the two AirBnB units bring in 3-4x the mortgage in revenue. Not enough to retire of course, but it’s a nice side hustle.

That being said, our bookings been hit pretty hard by the coronavirus. We’ve hade multiple cancellations recently, and the month of April is basically wide open. We usually have an occupancy rate for 85%. I think we’ll be lucky to have 50% of the next couple months.




Paying off two dwellings at little effort is a nice "side hustle". No wonder nobody in the west is working! Meanwhile the Fed pumps more money to protect banks from rentiers blowing up, while taxes go unpaid and hospitals are underfunded.


Why are you mad about buildings being used at over 85% occupancy on average?


Short term rentals to tourists isn't occupancy, it's occupation. Sorry for the hyperbole I just thought that was good wordplay.

These rentals drive up rents for the people in the community and remove housing stock from the market, making it more expensive and less likely for people to purchase their home and build equity. Rent is non recoverable unlike a mortgage, even if you ultimately take a loss.

Flooding the housing market with units for sale at a bargain would be great for common people trying to build wealth.


Seeing housing as a vehicle for wealth building is what leads to policies that increase or maintain housing prices. People don't need to put their money in to housing to build equity, they can just build equity. You know, save. Put it in diversified assets not chuck it all in to one asset and then leverage debt to chuck even more in to that asset.

Home ownership is how the system keeps the common man down. It should absolutely not be championed in his favour.


As a home buyer you aren't making the choice between a diversified set of assets without leverage and one highly leveraged asset. You're spending money for another month of shelter while making the decision to keep it when you've paid for it long enough.

A lot of people would love to pump their savings into a diverse portfolio with little debt. Unfortunately we still have to pay rent. Personally if I do the math on it, putting savings into equities to save up for a 20% down payment on a mortgage is by far the most sound plan I can have because it optimizes my returns for my income.

And even without talking about returns, in terms of utility I don't want to raise a family in my expensive and tiny apartment - basically I don't want to save up so I can buy a nice house when I retire, I want to buy a nice house to build my life in then sell it when I retire. You've got the incentives completely flipped in my opinion.


> People don't need to put their money in to housing to build equity, they can just build equity. You know, save. Put it in diversified assets not chuck it all in to one asset and then leverage debt to chuck even more in to that asset.

On paper yes. In practice no. Because the common man will buy a new car, or order some trinket from Amazon, or some other splurge.

> Home ownership is how the system keeps the common man down. It should absolutely not be championed in his favour.

Home ownership forces the common man to save because he knows he’ll be kicked to the curb if he doesn’t pay the mortgage.

If people treated their retirement savings like a true mortgage, e.g. putting it before all other monthly expenses, then yes it’d be possible. But they won’t.


Shouldn't the increased tourism be a net win for the local economy though?

I agree its unfortunate if airbnb units increase rents, even a small amount. Finding good data isn't all that easy, but this study [0] from last year suggests airbnb was responsible for about 20% of total rent increase amounts in the areas studied. But, ignoring other potentially beneficial effects is one sided - if tourism was always bad, people should also be against building or operating hotels that could be apartments instead.

[0] https://phys.org/news/2019-08-airbnb-affect-rents-housing-pr...


Here is a report into the negative effects of airbnb.

https://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/publication/short-term-cities/sho...

Here is the small pox rash over Montreal:

http://insideairbnb.com/montreal/?neighbourhood=C%C3%B4te-de...

Repeated ad-infinitum across the globe by a company that figured out:

1. how to put pictures on web sites

2. regulatory arbitrage of residential housing


There is no example of a place where the net impact of tourism is positive. Not in the era in which we live, certainly.


What?


And they should build wealth by saving their surplus value, which means adding value. If they buy land at a reasonable price they avoid paying tax to bankers via interest.

Create wealth instead of appropriating it and everyone benefits!


It only drives up rents if the dipshits in charge refuse to build housing in response to demand.


Because they are breaking the law by violating zoning codes which we put there for a reason.


Because residential buildings were built to be homes, not effort free income streams for rentiers.


I suppose you are against any sort of rental property then, right?


A short term rental isn't a rental property. It's effectively a hotel.


From the perspective of "residential buildings were built to be homes", what is the effective difference?


Looking at just the physical building, not much.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: