I feel like this is not some great engineering feat with Airbnb and has much more to do with classism and the type of person who typically owns that beautiful vacation home you want to stay in.
You're right but I think that's an unfair way to put the fact that two rich people can get a remedy from each other without the law, but a rich person only gets remedies from poor people through the law.
The better comparison is Airbnb versus CouchSurfing or TrustedHouseSitters. All three use unused space in your home in exchange for something of psychological and monetary value, including some things Paul Graham said were important to Airbnb - like the psychic pleasure of having guests over.
The difference is that TrustedHouseSitters sitters and CouchSurfing surfers are disproportionately completely broke, so if they go and they break your rich person coffee machine, what are you going to do? Get money from the guest?
You'll never use THS again. Retention is 0% after the first incident. The private equity firm that owns THS isn't going to make you whole, the insurance they give has a $1,000 minimum, the requirements are onerous, etc.
When I break something in an Airbnb, I pay every time. When they fuck up the parking and I get towed, the Airbnb paid. So we both keep using the service.
Michael Sandel talked big talk about Airbnb monetized something that used to be generously gifted, but he omitted the special math of how rich people exchanging stuff with each other results in that thing being utilized 10,000% more, simply because it is sustainable in the sense of people retaining and not hitting the home button, and he never really talked about, ironically, the lack of justice when people break or steal your shit and there is simply no remedy.
This seems very orthogonal to concerns about being murdered.
> Michael Sandel talked big talk about Airbnb monetized something that used to be generously gifted, but he omitted the special math of how rich people exchanging stuff with each other results in that thing being utilized 10,000% more, simply because it is sustainable in the sense of people retaining and not hitting the home button, and he never really talked about, ironically, the lack of justice when people break or steal your shit and there is simply no remedy.
I'm sorry, I honestly don't really understand. I'm assuming you're discussing Sandel's recent work on what he sees as the moral limits around markets.
You're saying that markets provide a recourse for property damage, which makes them more just? That, again, seems unrelated - no reason you can't have recourse for property damage even if you are letting someone stay in your house free of charge.
I also just think the narrative you're spinning is sort of misleading. Rich people overwhelmingly do have remedies for wrongs and have the capacity to pursue legal action.
Contrast that with an intoxicated young woman climbing alone into a stranger's car where he has a lot of control - including being able to lock the doors or take her to a remote/unfamiliar location. Even with all the checks and measures in place, assaults are not uncommon; I'm not familiar with any AirBnB type assaults (far more frequently, it's the guests victimising the owner via property damage).
Not true, we once stayed in Pisa, Italy, and the (absolutely messy) appartment was shared with the host and her son. It was quite awkward at times but we still enjoyed the stay
From what I’ve heard the tech is mediocre at best there. Doesn’t matter though, the brand is what people pay for and what drives hype.