I would image the opposite tbh, that $9b of delayed goods per day is not lost, it's just delayed. Most of that goods, unless they are perishable goods, will sell like normal, just a bit later.
There is obviously a loss here on increased costs and loss of sell opportunities due to the delay, but that figures are mega inflated IMO.
According to this paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the average loss of value per day of delay from the cargo on these ships is between 0.6 and 2.2 percent [1]. According to other research I've seen, somewhere between 12% and 30% of daily global sea trade (the 30% figure may be out large cargo freighters specifically, not sure) goes through the Suez Canal. Anyone want to do the math?
Also... ships are slow. The voyage from the Suez canal to Rotterdam or Hamburg is at least six days, so there was quite some time to prepare for a gap in supply.
Well, this is a supply delay in hundreds of equally sized or larger ships. This is a delay in a majority of the global shipping industry of at LEAST a week, and shipping scheduling will be thrown off for months by this.
That is a LOT of cargo that's suddenly going to arrive 2 or 3 times later than expected. Huge economic impact. I really don't understand why people on HN are pushing so hard against the idea that this is just an economic blip.
Is there anyone involved in the industry that can chime in?
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of options other than Hotels that would cover your needs, that existed long before Airbnb.
Just to name a few you can stay in aparthotels , a common thing in almost every country, or you can just rent a regular apartment directly with the owner, instead of doing it through Airbnb.
IMO Airbnb does more bad than good and transform centric areas of big cities in amusement park for the tourist.
> you can just rent a regular apartment directly with the owner, instead of doing it through Airbnb
AirBnB actually solves a lot of this problem, though. I can't imagine the difficulty of finding 20-30 different, independent, 1-month apartment stays directly with the apartment owners, dealing with security deposits and short-term leases, etc.
They're a directory/marketplace/availability clearinghouse. They're an intermediary. They're a payment processor. They provide ratings and reviews. They provide some miniscule level of support.
It might be the case that AirBnB is more bad than good, but I think it's at least a little unreasonable to suggest "you can just rent a regular apartment directly with the owner" for the digital nomad case.
It's easy enough to filter to self-catering apartments on booking.com. My partner and I generally stay self-catering wherever we go, we prefer the comfort of an apartment over the amenities that a hotel is able to provide.
I agree there are many other AirBnB competitors. If AirBnB went away 100% and these competitors stepped in to fill that gap, I'm not sure the neighborhood impact is reduced by much. I mean, I've rented on vrbo, homeaway, booking, expedia, and airbnb.
Regardless of which platform I booked on, I'm the same tourist when I show up.
I don't know anything about vrbo and homeaway, but booking and expedia do not eskew local tourism regulations, AFAIK. That's one of the problems with AirBnB.
Imagine that you are moving every two months, and you need it down to a standardized process? Here's an example to try: Rent a furnished apartment in Washington DC from April 13th 2021 to June 17th 2021. This is trivial in Airbnb. How would you do it?
> just rent a regular apartment directly with the owner
In a lot of countries the rental market is broken and prevents this. I've had this issue in the UK when I needed to move to London on very short notice after getting a job offer (and didn't have enough money saved up to afford a month's worth of hotel until I sort things out).
I had enough money to pay a deposit and a couple months worth of rent, so all of that paid upfront plus the employment contract should be enough to make most landlords happy.
The problem? The rental market around here seems monopolized by agencies and they all had referencing/application fees which means that even if I agree to pay the fee and take the risk of losing the fee if I get rejected I still wouldn't be able to get the flat quickly (my objective was to pay 2 months + deposit upfront and get the keys the same day). If I wanted to mitigate the risk of being rejected it would mean I need to apply to multiple properties at once, paying them a referencing fee to each (which I guess I'd lose if I back out even if I end up accepted).
Airbnb took my money no questions asked and I had a place to sleep on the same day. I'm still in that place 3 years later (paying direct now obviously)! I hate Airbnb for other reasons, but there definitely is a need for a better short-term rental system.
Yep that's true. Though I have stayed in some really bad aparthotels, that are just not livable when you stay in them for a month (tiny studios, with barely a kitchen).
As far as renting from a regular owner, I think the hard thing about that is discovery.
There is obviously a loss here on increased costs and loss of sell opportunities due to the delay, but that figures are mega inflated IMO.