> What's cheaper, rebuilding a damaged city every 100 years or so? I wonder whether this is actually expensive, compared to the job gravitational opportunity.

> What's cheaper, rebuilding a damaged city every 100 years or so? I wonder whether this is actually expensive, compared to the job gravitational opportunity. Surely landlords of the skyscrapers downtown have included the risk in their financial plans. Home owners will support the greatest cost, but once again, they would have much less if they didn't live in SF. Health costs may already be included in your insurances. The federal government may help a bit. The rest of the people may go bankrupt, but there are many homeless people who were former researchers already, so it's renewing the workforce (the wrong way). It's extremely cynical, but city planners aren't the most compelled to act. I personally wouldn't go live in Vancouver for that reason, I don't go to conferences in USA because of the TSA, and I'll never do tourism in Japan because their conviction rate is 98%. One needs to include the risks in their life calculations.