Technology

Climate change is clearly a hoax, the Republicans were right all along!

/s

If an event chance is too high the cost of insurance increase to a point where it stops making sense.

If every house in an area is 100% guaranteed to get at least one flood event over a 5 years period, that means that every 5 years the insurer need to get in enough money to rebuild all houses, so the cost of insurance will be more than 1/5th of value of a house per year (plus operating cost, profit, and so on). There's no other way, it's just maths.

Ok, the actuarial math is more complex but it boils down to getting enough cash in to pay for claims and pay the operating cost.

At a that point people need to realize that if the risk is too high they need to accept it, plan to rebuild every 5 years on their dime, or move.

Unfortunately people suck at understanding risk.

Sounds kind of like exactly what insurance is for? If you can't get insurance for a flood zone, then maybe there's a fucking reason for that.

You’re telling me. I just started a small construction company on the side and have to do it uninsured because it cost at a minimum $4,000 a year just for liability. Seems ridiculous

Edit: I’m in Iowa too so clearly away from any possible large disasters. I know liability insurance is different from homeowners but I think it having a large effect on insurance as a whole. Also when the derecho went though Iowa, everyone and their brother apparently became a contractor and collected insurance money and that ruined it for a lot of other people.

Climate change is a big reason for the policy denials for property insurance. What wasn’t risky 20 years ago is much riskier today. Data doesn’t lie.

That's not bonkers that's sanity. If you want to build your house in front of a dike don't expect to get insurance. The trick is to build in a place where there's a risk, not certainty, of damage.

It's absolutely bonkers. I don't get how Americans can build houses in leopard enclosures and then act all surprised when, inevitably, their faces get eaten. I know you're a settler country with little connection to the land but it's been long enough to know which parts get flooded and which don't, now hasn't it. Around here you don't even get building permits for lots of stuff in places even if you were willing to take on all financial risk yourself because it'd put unconscionable load on disaster relief, and thereby society at large.

So, there's two ways to go from where you are: a) Double-down on being Yanks and say "fuck you got mine sucks to be you", abolish disaster relief and let those rugged individuals fend for themselves, or b) fucking build where it fucking makes sense. It's not like you're Singapore or something, you've got more than enough land.

I heard he was renting it out on Turo. That is unconfirmed. I have no source.

There's an odd trend of labeling everyone with even the slightest advantage a, "nepo baby".

Nepotism is when you give friends or relatives special consideration for jobs or positions. As far as I know the only job Buffet ever had from a relative was working in his grandfather's grocery store. The closets I could find for Elon Musk was that he started one of his companies with his brother.

Elon's father was an engineer. That certainly put him in a comfortable position, particularly as a white engineer in South Africa but it definitely doesn't get you recognition from old money families. Buffet went to public school.

They both had advantages growing up but if we expand nepotism to include people like that, it becomes a pretty meaningless term.

Wait, how is Warren Buffett nepotistic? He's giving the vast majority of his wealth to charity. He gave his kids each $17.5M to start their organizations, and then donated like $5B total to their organizations once they proved their management skills. But he pledged to give away most of the rest (almost $100B), and has already given away about $50B (latest pledge is 99% of his assets).

I really don't see him as nepotistic, he's pretty much the best kind of billionaire.