3 ms·

What is the average person supposed to do if their insurance stops covering their home after decades of ownership? Just saying "there are lots of other places i

What is the average person supposed to do if their insurance stops covering their home after decades of ownership? Just saying "there are lots of other places in the world" ignores the reality where their only major asset has become close to worthless through no fault of their own, which makes it impossible to relocate without going bankrupt. Should the government assist or are you of the opinion that it's just bad luck that they need to deal with on their own? Personally I think the most rational option would be for the government to build non-profit apartment complexes across the country, but localized in areas that are projected to be safe for 100+ years where affected families could be relocated. I don't think they should be pumping money into rebuilding homes in the exact same vulnerable location though - I don't know if that's happening or not.

potato3732842 1y ago
Even if you ignore the asset value the "just move" opinion is still almost pure ignorance. Normal people who've "put down roots" incur a HUGE cost when they move away from all that. Lives become optimized, you establish relationships with businesses. You make friends and engage in mutually beneficial favor trading. Ripping all that away is probably on the order of a 15-30% reduction in real income depending on the individuals in question.
- autoexec 1y ago
  Yeah, it's going to suck for a huge number of people who are displaced due to climate change, but "just move" is the increasingly going to be the only option that they have. People who are able to move out of areas that are projected to be hit hardest by climate change should consider moving away sooner rather than later to manage that transition more on their own terms. Globally, we're looking at billions of climate refugees needing to move somewhere and some of them will be displaced Americans. It's not going to be optimized for anybody and even people who don't have to move will be impacted by the influx of people coming into their cities.
ndileas 1y ago
I think this is a classic case for government intervention; buyouts back to state or federal land seems practical and just to me. And the government typically does intervene to help people, just not in the most optimal way IMO; there are stories of people whose homes have been rebuilt multiple times in vulnerable spots. I don't have a clear notion of how common of an issue that is, but I think the natural human tendency to pick a spot and defend it at all costs is shortsighted and leads to tragedy and high costs all around. And then a surprising fraction of people defend ignoring a reliable signal that something has to give... either building practices, or locations, or something else.
autoexec 1y ago
> Personally I think the most rational option would be for the government to build non-profit apartment complexes across the country, but localized in areas that are projected to be safe for 100+ years I agree, we should be building up infrastructure and housing in those areas to provide places for climate refugees both for those in the US who are forced to move and to house the millions we'll need to bring in from outside of the US. As far as I can tell we're just ignoring that the massive wave of migration due to climate change has already started and we're not doing anything to prepare.

potato3732842 1y ago

Even if you ignore the asset value the "just move" opinion is still almost pure ignorance. Normal people who've "put down roots" incur a HUGE cost when they move away from all that. Lives become optimized, you establish relationships with businesses. You make friends and engage in mutually beneficial favor trading. Ripping all that away is probably on the order of a 15-30% reduction in real income depending on the individuals in question.

autoexec 1y ago
Yeah, it's going to suck for a huge number of people who are displaced due to climate change, but "just move" is the increasingly going to be the only option that they have. People who are able to move out of areas that are projected to be hit hardest by climate change should consider moving away sooner rather than later to manage that transition more on their own terms. Globally, we're looking at billions of climate refugees needing to move somewhere and some of them will be displaced Americans. It's not going to be optimized for anybody and even people who don't have to move will be impacted by the influx of people coming into their cities.

ndileas 1y ago

I think this is a classic case for government intervention; buyouts back to state or federal land seems practical and just to me. And the government typically does intervene to help people, just not in the most optimal way IMO; there are stories of people whose homes have been rebuilt multiple times in vulnerable spots. I don't have a clear notion of how common of an issue that is, but I think the natural human tendency to pick a spot and defend it at all costs is shortsighted and leads to tragedy and high costs all around. And then a surprising fraction of people defend ignoring a reliable signal that something has to give... either building practices, or locations, or something else.

autoexec 1y ago

> Personally I think the most rational option would be for the government to build non-profit apartment complexes across the country, but localized in areas that are projected to be safe for 100+ years I agree, we should be building up infrastructure and housing in those areas to provide places for climate refugees both for those in the US who are forced to move and to house the millions we'll need to bring in from outside of the US. As far as I can tell we're just ignoring that the massive wave of migration due to climate change has already started and we're not doing anything to prepare.