Not necessarily. Certain customers are problematic and can case damage, which is especially possible when you let them occupy your property (the host is the one who ends up paying for repairs, good luck getting it out of the customer).
Usually, in a hotel this problem is fixed by requiring credit card with a high security deposit it check in, such as needing a few hundred dollars for incidentals plus room and tax. This means anyone without a credit card, and anyone without $500+ of available credit isn't allowed to stay. In effect, this doesn't guarantee the hotel payment for any damages, but it keeps out the type of guest that typically cause problems.
> In effect, this doesn't guarantee the hotel payment for any damages, but it keeps out the type of guest that typically cause problems.
So, people with credit cards and a $500+ limit are less likely to cause problems? As someone who dabbled in landlording (never again!) I can tell you that people with money are just as capable of trashing your house as people without money.
As someone who grew up in the hotel business starting with making beds and has dealt with thousands and thousands of people from worldwide, there is a very clear association with a person's access to credit (aka wealth, what kind of culture they grew up in, their level of education), and the likelihood of them causing issues.
It didn't hurt businesses in the American south enough to compel them to stop discriminating. I don't get it either, why would I turn down someone's money because they're black, but lots of people did and whatever economic pain they felt from it was apparently outweighed by the joy of being racist assholes.
One of the major motivations in keeping Jim Crow laws was to prevent economic competition (a "race to the bottom") between whites and non-whites. See also FDR's pro-union/pro-white policies.
Linking to Wikipedia without expounding which details you are referring to is a bit of sleight of hand. Specifically, what part of "separate but equal" [1] "legally required" that "separate" facilities for blacks have poorer conditions than the facilities for whites? I speculate that it's embedded cultural beliefs of hatred and superiority/inferiority (or, at a minimum, apathy) that caused those poorer conditions and discrimination to happen much more so than anything that was "legally required" or based on economic concerns.
Also, the issue at hand for Airbnb is specifically about hosts discriminating against potential guests. How do hosts that discriminate against guests encourage a "race to the bottom"? There might be parallels between discrimination a la Jim Crow and discrimination a la Airbnb hosts, but they aren't in the form of economic concerns. Your snark about learning history seems misplaced.
If you scroll up, you'll see Frondo asserting that "It [discrimination] didn't hurt businesses in the American south enough to compel them to stop discriminating."
Frondo is attempting to argue that market forces don't punish people (much) for discrimination. I'm simply pointing out that market forces weren't even allowed. People discriminated because the law said things like this:
"No colored barber shall serve as a barber [to] white women or girls."
"Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor..."
"No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter."
" Every person...operating...any public hall, theatre, opera house, motion picture show or any place of public entertainment or public assemblage which is attended by both white and colored persons, shall separate the white race and the colored race..."
Only one (the first) of the four quotes you've chosen restrict market forces in the way you are envisioning, i.e. white workers don't want black competition. I'd be interested in what the next sentence was, and wouldn't be surprised if it was "no white barber shall serve as a barber to colored women". (Aside: it seems like lots of these snippets are floating around the internet with little by way of attribution.)
The remaining three are "separate but equal". We return to the question: what about these laws required that the "separate" facilities be of lesser quality? Nothing about "separate but equal" immediately screams "discrimination", but as we know from history, it can end in discriminatory practice. The de facto ramifications of the laws were that black populations suffered (economically/educationally/etc.) at the hands of white populations: the market forces were not strong enough to encourage a lifting of the laws, or genuinely equal facilities, as Frondo suggests. Similarly, market forces may not be strong enough to encourage Airbnb hosts to serve all potential customers equally.
Your causation is backwards: people created the laws (under guise of equality) because they wanted to discriminate (and, if you want to boil everything down to some ahistorical economic gesture, it resulted in market forces tilting in their favor). To say that the laws stemmed from the economic implications is a stretch, especially post Plessy.
The first of the four quotes describes a market restriction on employment. The other three describe market restrictions demanding discrimination for customers.
Similarly, market forces may not be strong enough to encourage Airbnb hosts to serve all potential customers equally.
That may be true, but citing legally required discrimination as evidence in favor of that proposition is silly. No one claims market forces can fix bad politics.
If we can't agree that the last three refer to "separation" (de facto discrimination) and not de jure discrimination, I think we will only continue to argue past one another.
It was probably because their white customers were racist assholes too so they would lose more money on losing those white customers than they would gain from new black ones.
I would guess some combination of feeling various minorities were filthy and not wanting to deal with them, and a network effect. Sure, you might make money letting rooms to a handful of blacks but you would likely then lose out on all the other racist white folk who don't want to use the same sheets as "one of those people". One can easily imagine it might have been economically harmful to NOT be a racist in those days.
It might, but how would they know? They're so sure they're protecting themselves that they will never care that they're making less money than they could. You'll not convince them of that, because they'll just argue about the potential money lost to undesirable tenants.
Probably not sharply enough or clearly enough to impact behavior.
The thought patterns around this sort of thing can be pretty insidious, too. Some might be thinking stuff along the lines of "I'd be doing better if all these black people weren't tying up my reservations calendar".
No, I specified culture, not race. The way of life is the problem, not someone's skin color or biological features. For example, you wouldn't want gypsies in your residence or hotel, they WILL cause problems and it will negatively effect your other hotel guests. For similar reasons you wouldn't want to live next to them either. Another culture is that of the rich (especially newly rich), where their wealth has allowed them to hire all sorts of servants and baby sitters and in general they treat their hired help as if they are below them.
They bring that same attitude and cause problems (as do spoiled Americans and Europeans, but those tend to be much richer and fewer due to labor costing more) wherever they go due to their entitledness. Again, it has nothing to do with race, but the manner in which one conducts themselves, which may have to do with the environment they grew up in.
Regardless, you would not want to stay in a hotel that did not screen its guests one way or another, and the same principles apply here. Note, that I'm not advocating blindly discriminating against anyone, but simply stating that any business should be forced to accept anyone is not realistic. They will screen one way or another, either by raising the prices, requiring deposits, or simply by not offering the service anymore.
Except that the quote "Certain cultures are known for having lots of kids and not raising them to be quiet or disciplined" is literally a racists trope, used historically by racists to disparage other racial/ethnic groups. And they always defend their this baseless assertion by saying its a critique of culture and not about race. But, that's plainly bullshit. Its especially bullshit because you aren't referring to any specific culture, that's called a dog whistle[1], and its literally something racists do.
> you wouldn't want gypsies in you ... hotel
If they have credit cards I do. And they call themselves Romani, gypsy is a deeply racist term. Why are you still diggin this hole for yourself? You're just throwing around baseless accusations and generalizations about vast swathes of people.
No, credit cards don't do anything. It's merely one part of a screening process. If you try to charge a credit card for room damage or anything, you will get a chargeback that you will lose because Visa or the issuing bank will simply state that according to the merchant agreement, the card networks are NOT responsible for damage and other charges not specified on the rental agreement.
Hell, if you don't have a chip and signature transaction (good luck getting a signature) and you're trying to charge them for amounts not specified prior to check in (a blanket statement of you're liable for so and so doesn't count). You CAN take them to court, but it's not worth it paying lawyers and the time and they usually don't have money.
By gypsies, I mean the groups of people that roam around trying to steal and take advantage of every facility they can, which is how I've heard the term. They don't work, they live off welfare, it's a specific type of person.
Why don't the vast majority of decent hotels (and some local governments) allow hourly rooms? Is it to prevent prostitutes? No, because if you can afford to pay for a night, you're welcome to stay with whoever you want. But if you start selling hourly rooms, chances are you're going to end up with an unsavory crowd which will drive away your other clientele and you're almost guaranteed to have a bad time. Again, this is also another screening method.
Everyone screens and discriminates people all the time, and I'm not dog whistling anyone except those that cause unreasonable damage. When dealing with lodging, if your aim is to sell a dwelling night after night, then anything that impedes that can be considered damage. If your hotel offers a room with a kitchen, and you're selling to Indians or other groups that traditionally use a lot of spices in their cooking, you should put that room out of order for days after they leave because it will need to be carpet shampooed, it might need to be painted, and you will likely lose revenue when you rent this room to that type of person. Is it wrong for a business owner to take this into account when deciding whether or not to accept them?
As I said before, this is not selling a widget to them and then forgetting about them. In hotels and lodging, the transaction is not complete once the guest has left, it really depends on the state of the room once they have left, and in order to be a viable business, in my experience you have be at least be aware of the odds and plan accordingly.
"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'"
