5 ms·

Prices of things being destroyed goes up because of inflation, density of things being destroyed goes up because of population expansion. Unsure if anyone's kee

Prices of things being destroyed goes up because of inflation, density of things being destroyed goes up because of population expansion. Unsure if anyone's keeping track, but Florida has had mighty large population inflows for years.

throwup238 3y ago
Florida is also the worst state in the country as far as natural disasters go. Most of the state’s real estate is completely uninsurable and has to be backstopped by the National Flood Insurance Program which tax payers have to bail out every few years.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  Diffusing the insurance bill like this not only helps win votes in a swing state, it lets people pretend that global warming isn’t an issue and never will be an issue for a few years longer.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Is FL still a swing state?
    - pc86 3y ago
      Yes.
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      Sort of. At the state level, the GOP has veto-proof majorities in the legislature plus the governorship. Democrats have only won the state’s presidential election 5 times in the last ~50 years. And o e of those (Clinton) wasn’t a majority. But it’s close.
- phkahler 3y ago
  >> Most of the state’s real estate is completely uninsurable and has to be backstopped by the National Flood Insurance Program Which should not pay to rebuild there. Sure, pay to relocate/rebuild somewhere insurable.
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    There's nowhere in Florida that is insurable, though. Hurricanes are regularly wider than the entire state. Even if it just has one-half of the storm hit it, the entire state is still likely to be hit.
    - c1sc0 3y ago
      Then maybe that is a sign people shouldn't live there.
      - paxys 3y ago
        Or rather acknowledge that they are on their own if they do instead of expecting constant taxpayer bailouts.
    - pc86 3y ago
      Sounds like a feature, not a bug. If you can't get a private company to insure you, the government should (and does) insure you as a last resort, usually more expensive than any commercial insurance but still at a loss. But, paying out just to rebuild in the same spot is idiotic. The program should only pay out if you use that money to relocate and/or rebuild somewhere where you can get commercial insurance. If that means you need to move, so be it. If you can just pay out of pocket to rebuild every few years, that's fine. It's not a human right to live on a beach in a state that gets nailed by a record-setting hurricane every 3 or 4 years (and several times in between).
    - spydum 3y ago
      I think that's a rather uneducated spoonfed media hyperbole. Hurricanes do damage for sure, but generally it is to: - older properties not up to code - coastal properties Plenty of places in the state which are insurable, and at minimal risk, but are getting steamrolled by insurance increases. A good chunk of that is roofing insurance fraud. Nobody pays to reroof anymore out of their own pocket.
- ghaff 3y ago
  It's low lying and, geographically, is pretty much a magnet for hurricanes. Even aside from what I find is a miserable climate, I couldn't imagine moving there absent really compelling reasons.
- nradov 3y ago
  It's easy to criticize Florida, but California is also essentially uninsurable for earthquake risks even with government subsidies. While insurance is technically available, very few homeowners purchase it because it's just pointless. Premiums are high and if the big one hits we won't get much. Everyone sort of implicitly assumes that in a real disaster the federal and state governments will bail us out somehow even if we're uninsured. And now some parts of California are also becoming uninsurable for wildfire risks. More and more homeowners are switching to government subsidized minimal coverage plans as commercial insurers increasingly refuse to write. What we'll probably end up doing in Florida, California, and other vulnerable states is further tightening building codes so that structures are more resilient to natural disasters. Better to build something durable than to use insurance money to rebuild after every major disaster. The downside is that this will make housing even more expensive in areas where there are already critical shortages.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    > And now some parts of California are also becoming uninsurable for wildfire risks. More and more homeowners are switching to government subsidized minimal coverage plans as commercial insurers increasingly refuse to write. That's just FUD from the insurance industry. The vast majority (97%) of California home owners still have a competitive private option and the California FAIR plan insurer of last resort is a little more expensive but fully self funded, unlike the NFIP. To my knowledge it has never been bailed out by taxpayers since it was introduced almost sixty years ago. Most of the remaining 3% are in such remote areas they don't even have municipal fire fighters. My parents have the FAIR plan in an exurb that hasn't burned in over a century and has had a major nearby wildfire a few years ago, but their immediate neighbors have private fire insurance. They have agreements with their insurers to kill all the small and medium sized plants on their properties with roundup, creating a 50-100 ft fire break around the houses. Since my parents bought the property to grow food on a ten acre homestead, they pay a little extra for the FAIR plan instead of killing everything. Earthquake risk is hard to evaluate because of all the retrofitting. I'd be more worried about Seattle/Portland but yeah everyone just assumes California will be bailed out when the big one hits (just like we've been bailing out the East and Gulf coast for decades)
coldcode 3y ago
And Florida did not have a major hurricane this year, so it will likely be worse next year.
- davedx 3y ago
  I don't think that's how it works? (Probability)
  - blackbear_ 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - greiskul 3y ago
    There is regression toward the mean, so if Florida had an unusually good year, we would expect that next year to be worse then this year.
    - stavros 3y ago
      Yes but that doesn't really mean much. We always expect it to have, say, 4 hurricanes, so if it had 3, we still expect the same number as always (4). The fact that we didn't have one this year doesn't change next year's expectation.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        Nor does it change the fact that next year's [unchanged] expectation is worse than this year's observation.
  - iamthepieman 3y ago
    Doesn't have to have anything to do with probability. If fewer resources are spent repairing and re-building and the last hurricane event is out of people's minds then I would expect there to be more building resulting in more damage next time a hurricane comes around.

throwup238 3y ago

Florida is also the worst state in the country as far as natural disasters go. Most of the state’s real estate is completely uninsurable and has to be backstopped by the National Flood Insurance Program which tax payers have to bail out every few years.

faeriechangling 3y ago
Diffusing the insurance bill like this not only helps win votes in a swing state, it lets people pretend that global warming isn’t an issue and never will be an issue for a few years longer.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Is FL still a swing state?
  - pc86 3y ago
    Yes.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Sort of. At the state level, the GOP has veto-proof majorities in the legislature plus the governorship. Democrats have only won the state’s presidential election 5 times in the last ~50 years. And o e of those (Clinton) wasn’t a majority. But it’s close.
phkahler 3y ago
>> Most of the state’s real estate is completely uninsurable and has to be backstopped by the National Flood Insurance Program Which should not pay to rebuild there. Sure, pay to relocate/rebuild somewhere insurable.
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  There's nowhere in Florida that is insurable, though. Hurricanes are regularly wider than the entire state. Even if it just has one-half of the storm hit it, the entire state is still likely to be hit.
  - c1sc0 3y ago
    Then maybe that is a sign people shouldn't live there.
    - paxys 3y ago
      Or rather acknowledge that they are on their own if they do instead of expecting constant taxpayer bailouts.
  - pc86 3y ago
    Sounds like a feature, not a bug. If you can't get a private company to insure you, the government should (and does) insure you as a last resort, usually more expensive than any commercial insurance but still at a loss. But, paying out just to rebuild in the same spot is idiotic. The program should only pay out if you use that money to relocate and/or rebuild somewhere where you can get commercial insurance. If that means you need to move, so be it. If you can just pay out of pocket to rebuild every few years, that's fine. It's not a human right to live on a beach in a state that gets nailed by a record-setting hurricane every 3 or 4 years (and several times in between).
  - spydum 3y ago
    I think that's a rather uneducated spoonfed media hyperbole. Hurricanes do damage for sure, but generally it is to: - older properties not up to code - coastal properties Plenty of places in the state which are insurable, and at minimal risk, but are getting steamrolled by insurance increases. A good chunk of that is roofing insurance fraud. Nobody pays to reroof anymore out of their own pocket.
ghaff 3y ago
It's low lying and, geographically, is pretty much a magnet for hurricanes. Even aside from what I find is a miserable climate, I couldn't imagine moving there absent really compelling reasons.
nradov 3y ago
It's easy to criticize Florida, but California is also essentially uninsurable for earthquake risks even with government subsidies. While insurance is technically available, very few homeowners purchase it because it's just pointless. Premiums are high and if the big one hits we won't get much. Everyone sort of implicitly assumes that in a real disaster the federal and state governments will bail us out somehow even if we're uninsured. And now some parts of California are also becoming uninsurable for wildfire risks. More and more homeowners are switching to government subsidized minimal coverage plans as commercial insurers increasingly refuse to write. What we'll probably end up doing in Florida, California, and other vulnerable states is further tightening building codes so that structures are more resilient to natural disasters. Better to build something durable than to use insurance money to rebuild after every major disaster. The downside is that this will make housing even more expensive in areas where there are already critical shortages.
- throwup238 3y ago
  > And now some parts of California are also becoming uninsurable for wildfire risks. More and more homeowners are switching to government subsidized minimal coverage plans as commercial insurers increasingly refuse to write. That's just FUD from the insurance industry. The vast majority (97%) of California home owners still have a competitive private option and the California FAIR plan insurer of last resort is a little more expensive but fully self funded, unlike the NFIP. To my knowledge it has never been bailed out by taxpayers since it was introduced almost sixty years ago. Most of the remaining 3% are in such remote areas they don't even have municipal fire fighters. My parents have the FAIR plan in an exurb that hasn't burned in over a century and has had a major nearby wildfire a few years ago, but their immediate neighbors have private fire insurance. They have agreements with their insurers to kill all the small and medium sized plants on their properties with roundup, creating a 50-100 ft fire break around the houses. Since my parents bought the property to grow food on a ten acre homestead, they pay a little extra for the FAIR plan instead of killing everything. Earthquake risk is hard to evaluate because of all the retrofitting. I'd be more worried about Seattle/Portland but yeah everyone just assumes California will be bailed out when the big one hits (just like we've been bailing out the East and Gulf coast for decades)

coldcode 3y ago

And Florida did not have a major hurricane this year, so it will likely be worse next year.

davedx 3y ago
I don't think that's how it works? (Probability)
- blackbear_ 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- greiskul 3y ago
  There is regression toward the mean, so if Florida had an unusually good year, we would expect that next year to be worse then this year.
  - stavros 3y ago
    Yes but that doesn't really mean much. We always expect it to have, say, 4 hurricanes, so if it had 3, we still expect the same number as always (4). The fact that we didn't have one this year doesn't change next year's expectation.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      Nor does it change the fact that next year's [unchanged] expectation is worse than this year's observation.
- iamthepieman 3y ago
  Doesn't have to have anything to do with probability. If fewer resources are spent repairing and re-building and the last hurricane event is out of people's minds then I would expect there to be more building resulting in more damage next time a hurricane comes around.