4 ms·
Fighting the entire USA coastline against rising oceans is batshit crazy and would bankrupt the country if we tried. I always found it crazy that flood insuran
by sliken 8y ago
Fighting the entire USA coastline against rising oceans is batshit crazy and would bankrupt the country if we tried.
I always found it crazy that flood insurance would pay people to rebuild... on a flood plain. I've read stories where people rebuild once a decade or so. Seems clearly irrational and people living outside of floodplains should subsidize those that don't.
Similarly if you are high risk of fires or earthquakes you should pay a premium on insurance and that insurance should depend on reasonable mitigations. A friend moved into high risk area and they required a clear area near the house and a rooftop watering system to get the insurance that was required to get the home loan.
So yes, the country should either pay for mitigation (levees, fire control, earthquake resistant building costs etc) where it makes sense or ban developments in high risk areas. Paying for people to live below ocean level makes no sense.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Similarly if you are high risk of fires or earthquakes you should pay a premium on insurance You do for fire risk and standard homeowners insurance doesn't cover earthquakes, you need a separate policy, which is non-free, so you are clearly paying a premium for it.
- PopeDotNinja 8y agoI used to sell insurance, including homeowners. As part of selling a homeowners policy, I was supposed to ensure that a home was not ridiculously vulnerable to catching fire. An example would be making sure the owner hadn't stuffed the house full of canisters of gasoline, or that the exterior of the house wasn't in direct contact with an abundance of dry vegetation. Any insurance company that is willing to be represented by agents too lazy too verify a home is a fire waiting to happen is gonna lose money big time. It seems the logical approach to handling house in a wildfire prone area orvavflood plain would be to simply charge stupid high rates or not offer the insurance at all.
- goodcanadian 8y agoIt seems the logical approach to handling house in a wildfire prone area orvavflood plain would be to simply charge stupid high rates or not offer the insurance at all. Which is exactly what insurance companies do. It is usually very difficult to get flood insurance in a flood plain. Rather than taking that as a clue that people shouldn't live there, all too often, the government steps in to subsidise the risk. I don't want to over simplify, things are complicated and sometimes it is appropriate to subsidise such risk, but sometimes it is not.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoPrivate companies don’t offer flood insurance in those areas, that cost is spread around federal taxpayers via the Nationals Flood Insurance Program.
- cobookman 8y agoIf Insurance is priced right who cares. Your insurance factors in the risk of loosing the home, and should ensure the insurance company always wins long term.
- wongarsu 8y agoNormally I agree with you, but I am told in the US flood insurance is basically a government fund and doesn't operate like a private profit-seeking insurance at all. This leads to weird cases where people just rebuild in the same place in full knowledge that they will rebuild again in a few years, with flood insurance covering the expense.
- zdragnar 8y agoThe premiums for flood insurance can be pretty steep, and I would be extremely surprised if the fund operated at a loss. In my case, the annual premium is a little over 1% of the covered value, even though the historical record high (back in the 1960's) would probably only require about 10% of the total coverage purchased to replace (in this case, mostly from a few out buildings that are a little lower than the house itself).
- bronson 8y agoThen you're extremely surprised. "Currently, the NFIP’s debt totals $24.6 billion, nearly six times the program’s total annual receipts of $4.3 billion" https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53028-nfipreport2.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/re... And Planet Money, as always, has a great take: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/29/554603161/episode-797-flood-money https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/29/554603161/epis...
- zdragnar 8y agoAfter doing some more digging, it turns out that roughly 20% of NFIP policies are subsidized, and the up-to $30b debt was authorized by Congress in 2012 due to the shortfalls. 80% of the policies (the non-subsidized ones) are thought to be actuarially sound, barring unintended consequences of out-of-date flood maps. So, I'm not terribly surprised. Were it operating like a traditional insurer, it might even be doing fine (especially if it had some other reforms such as eliminating or having better oversight over WYO policies).
- inflatableDodo 8y ago>Paying for people to live below ocean level makes no sense. Well, Amsterdam is currently 2 meters below sea level already and it will be pretty interesting to see what happens to New Amsterdam, I mean, York. For one thing, Manhatten is essentially floating already, they have to pump it out continuously otherwise it sinks. edit - ok, around sea level, it isn't at 2 meters below. I stupidly thought google would be correct.
- sliken 8y agoAmsterdam is an interesting example. Is Amsterdam asking anyone else to subsidize them? From what I've read they made a conscious decision that the pumping, levees and related was worth the cost of the extra acres of land they provided. New Orleans seems to be arguing that it only makes sense if 75% of it is paid by someone else... forever.
- inflatableDodo 8y ago>Is Amsterdam asking anyone else to subsidize them? Depending on your point of view maybe half the world did, one way or another. Though I really shouldn't point fingers, being British.
- rots 8y agoa lot of of economic activity in NL is below sea level. No, Amsterdam did not directly pay for it. But yes, the most profitable regions contributed the most.
- potiuper 8y ago> Is Amsterdam asking anyone else to subsidize them? Nowadays, mostly tourists. But, they come willingly to be fleeced, being priggish.
- nickthemagicman 8y agoThats because most of the countries goods pass through New Orleans.
- Kim_Bruning 8y ago
- CPLX 8y agoPeople rebuild all sorts of stuff all the time. Look around your average city or drive around and tell me how old all the buildings are. You’ll notice most of them are less than 20-40 years old. And the ones that aren’t have almost certainly been essentially rebuilt recently in practice. We knock stuff down and change or rebuild it all the time, there’s no such thing as permanent against the weather. Or just changing tastes and technology, I mean indoor plumbing is less than 100 years old. Shit changes.
- jefftk 8y ago> indoor plumbing is less than 100 years old Huh? The house I grew up in was built in 1895 and had plumbing from the start. It looks like rich people started getting indoor plumbing in the early 1800s (the White House got it in 1833) and it was widespread in new construction by the end of the century.