Noticing some consequences does not mean that they are calling for outlawing them.

I wasn't really picking on the point, I was just noting that Airbnb seems like an increadibly bad example.

Also, using hyperbolic language like

> But this level of wealth concentration and inequality is detrimental to the fabric of a society. We’re not better off, we’re not more innovative, we’re not healthier or more cohesive or happier when this happens.

is definitly a dog whistle and not simply "noticing some consequences".

I think the problem here is the consolidation of an entire industry around a single Silicon Valley company. In any other time in history this would be called a monopoly, and that is a problem.

If AirBnB was just an aggregator, say a cooperative standard where hotels and guesthouses could post their services and the profits of AirBnB would go back to the industry, that would be fine. But it is not, the profits go to shareholders and Silicon valley executives. And that is the problem.

There are competitors- VRBO, for example. AirBnB have a significant share, but hardly a monopoly.

If Airbnb were just an aggregator, it'd be pretty worthless. For myself and my wife, finding superhosts on Airbnb is one of the indicators we use to feel comfortable that we probably aren't getting ripped off.

The relatively simple interface for scheduling, requesting changes, paying, seeing up front what taxes and surcharges will be applied etc. are all things the hotel industry has had decades to implement, and they didn't.

In fact, they still haven't. If hotels and guesthouses formed such a cooperative with all the same features, I would use it- especially if they didn't add on their own service charge like Airbnb.

The boom of renting rooms and houses may have come with its downsides, but from the consumer point of view, AirBnB has been a godsend for those of us who don't like hotels, travel with pets, and go to out-of-the-way places that don't otherwise tend to attract a lot of online presence.

Could you point out where my comment implied that they shouldn't be allowed to do business? I didn't mean to (and don't believe that) so it would be helpful to see how I could adjust the way I communicate this.

They should be allowed! It's just that maybe we need to adjust our society to this reality.

I think the language of the post was rather hyperbolic; I have quoted this line a few times now:

> But this level of wealth concentration and inequality is detrimental to the fabric of a society. We’re not better off, we’re not more innovative, we’re not healthier or more cohesive or happier when this happens.

When you give Airbnb as an example, I fixated on them mostly because it doesn't jive with the rest of your point.

So Airbnb is part of a group of companies in one geographic area that happen to be successful. Why does it matter? Should we choose to not do business with them, for the sake of geographical monetary equity? Whether group fiat or government breaking them up, it is the same result.

Sorry if all of this came off as too aggressive. It is monday, and I have had too much coffee already :/

Really don't get where you're coming from, that quote is two paragraphs after the mention of many other companies, where he's clearly implying the concentration of wealth in the hands of the founders and investors is the detriment.

I think his very good point is that a global business is comparatively easy to build and that has led to wealth concentration