The guests behind the bookings have received negative reviews from a number of Bay Area hosts, alleging they damaged the property and personal belongings.
I see nothing wrong with someone having two homes. What is an issue is some hedge fund owning 5,000 homes or the rapidly approaching trillionaire individuals. These are the people eating up all our resources. Maligning someone who is just barely above the rest of the population in terms of wealth just divides what should be a united front against the rich amongst the people.
You’re essentially arguing that you want people to remain in poverty because the second someone gets out of poverty, you label them as “the enemy” which is pretty fucked up.
Probably less than you’re trying to imply. The biggest factors in homelessness are mental illness and drug addiction, not cost or availability of housing.
There’s plenty of studies on this subject. And cost of housing is one of the primary factors. Substance abuse and mental health are certainly important as well.
But why should your food bank or church allow you to have seconds when there are other food banks and churches out there that ran out early before serving everyone? Why should you get a food bank at all when there are places that have none?!
This logic can always be applied to any situation because there are always worse situations to be found. You’re not solving anything by tearing down the guy who now earns enough to buy a meal or two at a restaurant in comparison because he’s not far off from your own situation. Attack the guy who buys the $10,000 lunch and doesn’t even finish it. They’re the tiny minority that have the biggest impact on the rest of us.
I see nothing wrong with someone having two homes. What is an issue is some hedge fund owning 5,000 homes or the rapidly approaching trillionaire individuals. These are the people eating up all our resources. Maligning someone who is just barely above the rest of the population in terms of wealth just divides what should be a united front against the rich amongst the people.
You’re essentially arguing that you want people to remain in poverty because the second someone gets out of poverty, you label them as “the enemy” which is pretty fucked up.
I do.
I used to get my meals from food pantries and churches.
The rule was: no one gets seconds until everyone’s been served.
If that makes me an evil commie or something, fine. It feels less evil than homelessness and plural homeownership existing at the same time.
Sure, but I don’t think the existence of Airbnb has much impact on homelessness
does people having multiple homes and driving up the price of housing contribute to homelessness?
Probably less than you’re trying to imply. The biggest factors in homelessness are mental illness and drug addiction, not cost or availability of housing.
Citation needed.
You’re overestimating how much individual factors are a problem compared to structural factors.
I don’t have a citation because I’ve never seen data either way. Happy to change my mind if the data exists.
There’s plenty of studies on this subject. And cost of housing is one of the primary factors. Substance abuse and mental health are certainly important as well.
But why should your food bank or church allow you to have seconds when there are other food banks and churches out there that ran out early before serving everyone? Why should you get a food bank at all when there are places that have none?!
This logic can always be applied to any situation because there are always worse situations to be found. You’re not solving anything by tearing down the guy who now earns enough to buy a meal or two at a restaurant in comparison because he’s not far off from your own situation. Attack the guy who buys the $10,000 lunch and doesn’t even finish it. They’re the tiny minority that have the biggest impact on the rest of us.