Airbnb’s $90B Economic Impact Study: Taking a Step Back to Understand What It Really Tells Us

In May 2025, Airbnb released a sweeping analysis of its economic impact across the U.S. in 2024, claiming over $90 billion in activity, 1 million+ jobs supported, and $25 billion in tax revenue generated. The figures are headline-grabbing, but what makes this year’s release more compelling than past ones is what it does differently:

• It names names: For the first time, a commissioned economic study by Charles River Associates (CRA) doesn’t just outline benefits of short-term rentals (STRs)—it clearly identifies hotels as the primary beneficiaries of STR restrictions, framing them as lobbying-backed incumbents.
• It compares cities: This is not a general impact summary. The report models what STR activity could have been in New York, Boston, New Orleans, and Philadelphia if these cities had adopted medium or light regulation, instead of severe restrictions. That’s key for understanding how regulations shift—not just shrink—economic opportunity.

This matters for vacation rental managers because the debate around STRs is shifting. The narrative is no longer just about whether STRs create value—it’s now about who is capturing it, who’s losing it, and why. This article breaks down the main findings, gives you the context behind the numbers, and explains how this data might help STR professionals advocate for fairer policies—and defend their place in the local economy.

---

Inside the $90 Billion: What the Study Says Airbnb Contributed in 2024

According to Airbnb’s internal data and CRA’s economic modeling, travel on the platform in 2024 contributed:

• $90 billion in total U.S. economic activity
• $25 billion in total tax revenue
• 1+ million jobs supported
• $775 average guest spend per trip, excluding accommodation
• Nearly 50% of spending occurred in non-hotel neighborhoods

This aligns with Airbnb’s broader advocacy strategy seen in previous years (like its €19 billion EU impact report), but this study goes further: it warns that over-regulation is not just affecting hosts—it’s hollowing out cities’ tax bases and pushing tourism away from local businesses.

---

How the Study Was Built: Understanding the Methodology

The report—“Special Interests vs. the Public Interest”—was prepared by Charles River Associates, a well-established economic consulting firm. Using a technique called synthetic control modeling, the authors projected how STR activity would have grown in high-restriction cities (like NYC) if they had instead adopted the regulatory profiles of medium- or light-regulation cities (e.g., Austin or Charlotte).

They compared actual booking data from January 2015 to August 2024 and estimated how many guest-nights, host earnings, guest spending, and tax revenues were lost. To avoid overstating, they even discounted figures based on assumptions about substitution (e.g., if guests shifted from STRs to hotels).

However, it’s worth noting:

• The study was commissioned by Airbnb, and while CRA is credible, the framing supports Airbnb’s strategic position.
• Findings are modeled estimates, not direct causation.
• Housing affordability, the core driver of many STR regulations, is acknowledged only briefly and not deeply analyzed.

Still, for policy conversations and industry advocacy, this is a data-backed narrative with sharp edges.

---

City-by-City: What STR Restrictions Are Costing

New York City

• Guest nights dropped 56% after Local Law 18 (LL18) took effect in Sept 2023.
• 3.68 million nights lost due to LL18 alone; up to 13.4 million if all regulations had been more relaxed.
• $638M in lost guest spending, $82M in tax revenue forfeited, and hotel rates up 14.4%, hitting a record $524/night.

What it means: NYC’s STR crackdown hasn’t eased rent but has redistributed tourism to hotels and nearby cities like Jersey City—cutting off local hosts, cleaners, and cafes in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx.

---

Boston

• Lost 1.08M–2.09M guest-nights compared to moderate or light regulation scenarios.
• STRs are restricted mainly to primary residences, limiting growth potential for managers.

What it means: Operating an STR business in Boston now requires pivoting to mid-term stays, primary residence models, or long-term furnished rentals.

---

New Orleans

• Lost 1.6M–3.2M guest-nights under tougher regulation.
• Post-COVID recovery has been stunted, with tourism not rebounding as in more open markets.

What it means: Managers here must navigate ever-changing zoning rules and consider diversified rental strategies.

---

Philadelphia

• Enforcement ramped up in 2023.
• Lost 359,000–492,000 guest-nights, with $5–6M in lost tax revenue.

What it means: While impacts are smaller than NYC or Boston, STR managers in Philly face increasing compliance demands—and the risk of platform delisting.

---

Who Really Benefits? Hotels Do.

A standout element in this year’s messaging is that Airbnb, via the CRA study, directly points the finger: hotels are the main beneficiaries of STR restrictions. The data shows:

• Hotel prices in NYC rose 14.4% after LL18.
• Hotels captured billions in additional revenue—$2.5B/year in NYC alone—without creating more housing or tax equity.
• Meanwhile, STR restrictions delivered no meaningful improvements in rent levels or vacancy rates.

This reinforces what many STR managers already suspect: hotels are lobbying for regulations not to help cities, but to eliminate competition.

---

What STR Managers Should Take Away

1. Use this data for advocacy: Whether lobbying locally or defending your operations to city councils, this study puts numbers behind your role as a contributor to the economy—not just a competitor to housing.
2. Know the limits: The data is strong, but it’s not neutral. Acknowledge it’s modeled, commissioned by Airbnb, and doesn’t answer all housing concerns. That builds trust.
3. Position yourself as a community contributor: Emphasize that your work supports jobs, boosts local businesses, and fills tax coffers—especially in neighborhoods that don’t benefit from hotel tourism.

---

Conclusion: Rethinking the STR Debate

Yes, housing affordability matters. But this study pushes us to ask: At what cost are we chasing that goal?

The evidence suggests that overregulation hasn’t made housing more affordable—but it has:

• Cut off income for thousands of hosts and service providers.
• Shifted tourism dollars away from neighborhoods that need them.
• Handed pricing power back to hotel chains.

As cities rethink their policies, professional STR managers must come prepared—not just with licenses and compliance plans, but with clear proof of their economic value.

This study, for all its caveats, gives you that.