10 ms·

Sometimes I wonder what in the world people are thinking. Does anybody actually find this a remotely reasonable estimate? Or even anything completely short of a

Sometimes I wonder what in the world people are thinking. Does anybody actually find this a remotely reasonable estimate? Or even anything completely short of absolutely ridiculous? I moved, along with my wife, literally half way around the world for less than $5k. For $200k, you could spend a like 2% of that on moving costs and then practically retire in many parts of the world. In the US the median personal income is around $35k. So you spend let's say $2000 moving and then you have $198k, or more than what most people will earn over the next 5 years for what?

mikeash 8y ago
The only reason you can move so cheaply is because someone else is going to move into your living space. Somebody with a mortgage can’t move for $2,000 unless they can find a buyer.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  This is a process that will play out over 80 years. It's not like everybody will be trying to sell tomorrow. Values for affected properties will go down slowly over time.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I'm pretty skeptical of that. It seems like individual property values will hold steady, then drop suddenly once an event occurs that convinces people the property is no longer viable.
gascan 8y ago
Things get pretty weird when you start contemplating doing things at this scale. My father likes to tell of how, supposedly, McDonalds was considering introducing a new menu item, let's say it was an eggplant burger (I forget). The first question they had to answer was does the entire world produce enough eggplant? Also, critically, if due to catastrophe you abandon your $100k home and buy another $100k home in another place, your move cost $200k.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Your McDonalds example is a really good one. McDonalds, as of 2012, serves about 68 million people per day. In climate migrants/day we get an aggregate of 13 million over 82 years. That works out to 434 per day. And that's on the extreme negative end of outcomes for climate change. To give some context to the numbers here [1] are states' net migration rates. So for instance Florida currently has a huge net migration rate of 16/1k. For a population of 21.3 million that means they're seeing 340,800 new residents per year. That's 933 per day. So the entire climate migration, in the worst case scenario, will involve the entirety of the US taking on half as many residents per year, as Florida alone already does. Of course it won't be entirely evenly spread out, but it also won't be jumping from e.g. 20 people/day to 20,000 people/day. It will mostly pass without major notice and, as the article mentions, is indeed already happening. This makes for nice shocking headlines, but this entire article is extremely hyperbolic. At the same time I don't think anybody really cares. It seems like people want to be terrified, even when the numbers in no way justify the claims. We are increasingly indeed living in a post-facts world. [1] - http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/state-migration-rates-annual-net-migration-by-state.html http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/state-migration-rat...
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  > Also, critically, if due to catastrophe you abandon your $100k home and buy another $100k home in another place, your move cost $200k. I don't think that's right. Let's say I "own" a $100k home, and have a $100k mortgage. I walk away from that house, buy another $100k house with another $100k mortgage. At the start, I have a $100k asset and a $100k liability, for a net of zero. After, I have a $100k asset and two $100k liabilities, so I have lost $100k. Alternately, let's say I own my $100k house free and clear, and have another $100 in the bank, for total assets of $200k. I abandon my house (writing the value down to $0), and buy another house for $100k. Now I still have the $100k house, but nothing in the bank. My total assets are $100k, so I've lost $100k. In no scenario have I lost $200k.
  - woofyman 8y ago
    > I walk away from that house The bank sues you for the 100k unless you live in a non recourse state. In that case, the feds consider that forgiven 100k income and you’ll owe taxes. >In no scenario have I lost $200k The median US house price is 200k not 100k.
CydeWeys 8y ago
The part you're missing is that the value of the houses being relocated away from is lost, as they've become uninhabitable due to rising seas. So it's not the cost of the relocation here that's at issue; that's comparatively cheap. What's very expensive is the loss of all of that property and infrastructure that is left behind and will need to be rebuilt elsewhere.

mikeash 8y ago

The only reason you can move so cheaply is because someone else is going to move into your living space. Somebody with a mortgage can’t move for $2,000 unless they can find a buyer.

toasterlovin 8y ago
This is a process that will play out over 80 years. It's not like everybody will be trying to sell tomorrow. Values for affected properties will go down slowly over time.
- mikeash 8y ago
  I'm pretty skeptical of that. It seems like individual property values will hold steady, then drop suddenly once an event occurs that convinces people the property is no longer viable.

gascan 8y ago

Things get pretty weird when you start contemplating doing things at this scale. My father likes to tell of how, supposedly, McDonalds was considering introducing a new menu item, let's say it was an eggplant burger (I forget). The first question they had to answer was does the entire world produce enough eggplant? Also, critically, if due to catastrophe you abandon your $100k home and buy another $100k home in another place, your move cost $200k.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Your McDonalds example is a really good one. McDonalds, as of 2012, serves about 68 million people per day. In climate migrants/day we get an aggregate of 13 million over 82 years. That works out to 434 per day. And that's on the extreme negative end of outcomes for climate change. To give some context to the numbers here [1] are states' net migration rates. So for instance Florida currently has a huge net migration rate of 16/1k. For a population of 21.3 million that means they're seeing 340,800 new residents per year. That's 933 per day. So the entire climate migration, in the worst case scenario, will involve the entirety of the US taking on half as many residents per year, as Florida alone already does. Of course it won't be entirely evenly spread out, but it also won't be jumping from e.g. 20 people/day to 20,000 people/day. It will mostly pass without major notice and, as the article mentions, is indeed already happening. This makes for nice shocking headlines, but this entire article is extremely hyperbolic. At the same time I don't think anybody really cares. It seems like people want to be terrified, even when the numbers in no way justify the claims. We are increasingly indeed living in a post-facts world. [1] - http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/state-migration-rates-annual-net-migration-by-state.html http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/state-migration-rat...
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> Also, critically, if due to catastrophe you abandon your $100k home and buy another $100k home in another place, your move cost $200k. I don't think that's right. Let's say I "own" a $100k home, and have a $100k mortgage. I walk away from that house, buy another $100k house with another $100k mortgage. At the start, I have a $100k asset and a $100k liability, for a net of zero. After, I have a $100k asset and two $100k liabilities, so I have lost $100k. Alternately, let's say I own my $100k house free and clear, and have another $100 in the bank, for total assets of $200k. I abandon my house (writing the value down to $0), and buy another house for $100k. Now I still have the $100k house, but nothing in the bank. My total assets are $100k, so I've lost $100k. In no scenario have I lost $200k.
- woofyman 8y ago
  > I walk away from that house The bank sues you for the 100k unless you live in a non recourse state. In that case, the feds consider that forgiven 100k income and you’ll owe taxes. >In no scenario have I lost $200k The median US house price is 200k not 100k.

CydeWeys 8y ago

The part you're missing is that the value of the houses being relocated away from is lost, as they've become uninhabitable due to rising seas. So it's not the cost of the relocation here that's at issue; that's comparatively cheap. What's very expensive is the loss of all of that property and infrastructure that is left behind and will need to be rebuilt elsewhere.