4 ms·
Looking at this on a "per capita" basis doesn't make much sense to me. In my experience, homeowner insurance rates are primarily based on the estimated value o
by jqpabc123 2y ago
Looking at this on a "per capita" basis doesn't make much sense to me.
In my experience, homeowner insurance rates are primarily based on the estimated value of the home --- not the number of people living in it.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoLiterally the next paragraph: “One obvious one is simply an increasing number of homes.” Then the author adjusts “for changes in home size, number of homes/homeownership rate, and construction cost inflation.”
- jqpabc123 2y agoSince insurance companies base their rates on home valuation, wouldn't it make more sense to look at the cost of insurance as a percentage of home valuation or perhaps max. coverage limits as stated in the policy? You can do whatever adjustments you want but I still fail to see how cost "per capita" turns into a particularly relevant measure since rates are not "per capita". If my in-laws move in, does my cost "per capita" decrease?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> wouldn't it make more sense to look at the cost of insurance as a percentage of home valuation or perhaps max Maybe. This also introduces other confounders. More fundamentally, those data won’t be as broad nor as granular (particular home-value data, which get notoriously obscured e.g. in jurisdictions with high property tax or transfer rates).