3 ms·

> Insurance isn't mentioned at all in the article. Yep. I am paying about $2000 a year for fire insurance for my summer home in Sierra Nevada. They promise to

> Insurance isn't mentioned at all in the article. Yep. I am paying about $2000 a year for fire insurance for my summer home in Sierra Nevada. They promise to pay $350k estimated as the price to rebuild. Three major fires were nearby this year, about a 100 homes burned in the county. But thousands of (presumably) insured homes, including mine, survived. The deal looks pretty good for the insurance company. I am also paying California and federal taxes. This girl talks about federal money as coming from nowhere. But they are not from nowhere, they are from my pocket. If they are that scarce, I would rather spend them on rebuilding California towns, than say Ukrainian ones.

bushbaba 4y ago
2,000 per year is still low. Just look at Florida on how bad it can get. Not even sure 350k would cover your rebuild costs given the market. Heard some crazy costs in Sonoma from high demand and not enough construction workers. Hopefully that insurance covers replacement cost if labor triples or more.
Cd00d 4y ago
Honestly, I'm having a hard time digesting your attitude that federal taxes should be allocated to your vacation home in a fire-prone region, than supporting the victims of an unjust war.
- MikePlacid 4y ago
  I am having a hard time with your victimblaming ordinary Americans for forest fires, while keeping American politicians off the hook for the war in Ukraine.
  - Cd00d 4y ago
    I actually didn't blame you for your situation. I pointed out that I find it gross to prioritize federal spending for your vacation home over victims of war. Also, ordinary Americans certainly don't have vacation homes.
sagarm 4y ago
$2k/yr to insure $350k is break even at one catastrophic insured event every 175 years. There are many properties that are expected to burn more frequently than that. > I am also paying California and federal taxes. This girl talks about federal money as coming from nowhere. But they are not from nowhere, they are from my pocket. If they are that scarce, I would rather spend them on rebuilding California towns, than say Ukrainian ones. Rebuilding Ukrainian towns reinforces the wavering American hegemony, which has many benefits for Americans broadly. Rebuilding some town that'll just burn down again in a few years? Negative value, just another liability. Tax revenues of <20% insured value/yr will never cover the cost.
- MikePlacid 4y ago
  > There are many properties that are expected to burn more frequently than that. There are 200,000 homes insured by CalFAIR plan, meaning they are in a fire prone region, “expected to burn” with some frequency. There are 876 structures damaged or destroyed in 2022 fire season in California. So, the real frequency looks like once in 228 years, while I am paying - as you’ve calculated- for once in 175. CalFIRE plan looks solidly in black.
  - SideQuark 4y ago
    One sample for an incomplete year is not a strong predictor of frequency, especially going forward where the trend is more fires.
    - MikePlacid 4y ago
      Why do you call the whole data a sample? Why do you call a year incomplete - the fire season is practically over, we had the first week of rain already, the grass is green again. Anyway, your prediction that I am paying too little for fire insurance seems wrong so far, isn’t it.
      - SideQuark 4y ago
        >Why do you call the whole data a sample? One year is a sample considering that different years have different results and you you pay yearly premiums for pricing. Another way to think: is there more data for houses burning that are not from 2022? For example, you claimed 876 structures so far in 2022, but in 2020 there were 11,116 structures damaged or destroyed [1]. In 2021 there were 3629 [2]. See why making claims on one data point is not statistically valid? A few more years from the same data source: 2012 => 876 2013 => 456 2014 => 471 2015 => 3159 2016 => 1274 2017 => 10280 2018 => 24226 2019 => 732 2020 => 11116 2021 => 3629 Notice any possible trend? >Why do you call a year incomplete because >the fire season is practically over you answered it: the year is not over. And all examples of past data I just presented had relevant fires well past this date. To expect no more this year ignores demonstrable history. >your prediction I made no such prediction. The mean over the above data (and ignoring the expected and demonstrated upward trend) is 5190, far above your single (incomplete) data point of 876. So you computed 1 in 228, but the avg above puts the last 10 years (using your math) at 1 in 38. This also ignores that previous years often had less houses in CalFAIR, which makes it even less in your favor. >I am paying too little for fire insurance seems wrong so far, isn’t it Go ahead and update your calculation using your method above with this better data and see what you obtain. [1] https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/ https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/ [2] https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2021/ https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2021/
midenginedcoupe 4y ago
Putting aside the wild idea about your holiday home being more important than victims of war, that sounds like a steal. It would take ~175 years for your premiums to add up to $350k, so the insurance co is betting that your house is only likely to burn to the ground less frequently than once per 175 years. Given you've said there were three fires nearby this year, and we know that fires aren't going to become _less_ frequent over the coming decades, that's not a bet I'd be willing to take. $2k premiums don't sound sustainable to me.
- MikePlacid 4y ago
  There are 200,000 homes insured by CalFAIR plan, meaning they are in a fire prone region, “expected to burn” with some frequency. There are 876 structures damaged or destroyed in 2022 fire season in California. So, the real frequency looks like once in 228 years, while I am paying - as you’ve calculated- for once in 175. CalFIRE plan looks solidly in black.
  - forgetbook 4y ago
    This is the second copy/paste of your single-sample, and yes, the whole of the data is in this case one sample. What are your error bars around n=2?

bushbaba 4y ago

2,000 per year is still low. Just look at Florida on how bad it can get. Not even sure 350k would cover your rebuild costs given the market. Heard some crazy costs in Sonoma from high demand and not enough construction workers. Hopefully that insurance covers replacement cost if labor triples or more.

Cd00d 4y ago

Honestly, I'm having a hard time digesting your attitude that federal taxes should be allocated to your vacation home in a fire-prone region, than supporting the victims of an unjust war.

MikePlacid 4y ago
I am having a hard time with your victimblaming ordinary Americans for forest fires, while keeping American politicians off the hook for the war in Ukraine.
- Cd00d 4y ago
  I actually didn't blame you for your situation. I pointed out that I find it gross to prioritize federal spending for your vacation home over victims of war. Also, ordinary Americans certainly don't have vacation homes.

sagarm 4y ago

$2k/yr to insure $350k is break even at one catastrophic insured event every 175 years. There are many properties that are expected to burn more frequently than that. > I am also paying California and federal taxes. This girl talks about federal money as coming from nowhere. But they are not from nowhere, they are from my pocket. If they are that scarce, I would rather spend them on rebuilding California towns, than say Ukrainian ones. Rebuilding Ukrainian towns reinforces the wavering American hegemony, which has many benefits for Americans broadly. Rebuilding some town that'll just burn down again in a few years? Negative value, just another liability. Tax revenues of <20% insured value/yr will never cover the cost.

MikePlacid 4y ago
> There are many properties that are expected to burn more frequently than that. There are 200,000 homes insured by CalFAIR plan, meaning they are in a fire prone region, “expected to burn” with some frequency. There are 876 structures damaged or destroyed in 2022 fire season in California. So, the real frequency looks like once in 228 years, while I am paying - as you’ve calculated- for once in 175. CalFIRE plan looks solidly in black.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  One sample for an incomplete year is not a strong predictor of frequency, especially going forward where the trend is more fires.
  - MikePlacid 4y ago
    Why do you call the whole data a sample? Why do you call a year incomplete - the fire season is practically over, we had the first week of rain already, the grass is green again. Anyway, your prediction that I am paying too little for fire insurance seems wrong so far, isn’t it.
    - SideQuark 4y ago
      >Why do you call the whole data a sample? One year is a sample considering that different years have different results and you you pay yearly premiums for pricing. Another way to think: is there more data for houses burning that are not from 2022? For example, you claimed 876 structures so far in 2022, but in 2020 there were 11,116 structures damaged or destroyed [1]. In 2021 there were 3629 [2]. See why making claims on one data point is not statistically valid? A few more years from the same data source: 2012 => 876 2013 => 456 2014 => 471 2015 => 3159 2016 => 1274 2017 => 10280 2018 => 24226 2019 => 732 2020 => 11116 2021 => 3629 Notice any possible trend? >Why do you call a year incomplete because >the fire season is practically over you answered it: the year is not over. And all examples of past data I just presented had relevant fires well past this date. To expect no more this year ignores demonstrable history. >your prediction I made no such prediction. The mean over the above data (and ignoring the expected and demonstrated upward trend) is 5190, far above your single (incomplete) data point of 876. So you computed 1 in 228, but the avg above puts the last 10 years (using your math) at 1 in 38. This also ignores that previous years often had less houses in CalFAIR, which makes it even less in your favor. >I am paying too little for fire insurance seems wrong so far, isn’t it Go ahead and update your calculation using your method above with this better data and see what you obtain. [1] https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/ https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/ [2] https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2021/ https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2021/

midenginedcoupe 4y ago

Putting aside the wild idea about your holiday home being more important than victims of war, that sounds like a steal. It would take ~175 years for your premiums to add up to $350k, so the insurance co is betting that your house is only likely to burn to the ground less frequently than once per 175 years. Given you've said there were three fires nearby this year, and we know that fires aren't going to become _less_ frequent over the coming decades, that's not a bet I'd be willing to take. $2k premiums don't sound sustainable to me.

MikePlacid 4y ago
There are 200,000 homes insured by CalFAIR plan, meaning they are in a fire prone region, “expected to burn” with some frequency. There are 876 structures damaged or destroyed in 2022 fire season in California. So, the real frequency looks like once in 228 years, while I am paying - as you’ve calculated- for once in 175. CalFIRE plan looks solidly in black.
- forgetbook 4y ago
  This is the second copy/paste of your single-sample, and yes, the whole of the data is in this case one sample. What are your error bars around n=2?