←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Animats ◴[] No.42734092[source]
Not uninsurable, but buildings are going to have to become tougher.

It's happened before. Chicago's reaction to the Great Fire was simple - no more building wooden houses. Chicago went all brick. Still is, mostly.

The trouble is, brick isn't earthquake resistant. Not without steel reinforcement.

I live in a house built of cinder block filled with concrete reinforced with steel. A commercial builder built this as his personal residence in 1950. The walls look like a commercial building. The outside is just painted cinder block. Works fine, survived the 1989 earthquake without damage, low maintenance. It's not what most people want today in the US.

replies(18): >>42734105 #>>42734140 #>>42734173 #>>42734290 #>>42734511 #>>42734544 #>>42734644 #>>42734673 #>>42734722 #>>42734995 #>>42735134 #>>42735677 #>>42736159 #>>42736211 #>>42736562 #>>42736923 #>>42741822 #>>42744129 #
_tariky ◴[] No.42734644[source]
In Yugoslavia, in 1969, one of the biggest earthquakes occurred, destroying several cities. After that, the country’s leaders decided to change building codes. Even today, although Yugoslavia no longer exists, the countries that adopted those codes have homes capable of withstanding earthquakes up to 7.5 on the Richter scale.

My main point is that if we face major natural disasters, we need to take action to mitigate their impact in the future. As a foreigner, it seems to me that Americans prioritize building cheap homes over constructing better and more resilient ones.

replies(8): >>42734751 #>>42734754 #>>42734965 #>>42735033 #>>42735056 #>>42736986 #>>42742129 #>>42744757 #
Panzer04 ◴[] No.42734751[source]
Why bother building a better home when it's cheaper to buy insurance and rebuild later?

This is why prices are important - sometimes it's sensible to build cheaper houses without these safeties if the risk isn't there, but if the risk does exist then it needs to be priced right to provide that incentive.

replies(7): >>42735032 #>>42735080 #>>42735305 #>>42735744 #>>42735936 #>>42738718 #>>42744134 #
miohtama ◴[] No.42735032[source]
Maybe be there is no longer "cheap" and that's the issue
replies(1): >>42735664 #
fishstock25 ◴[] No.42735664[source]
I don't understand the downvote. I think this hit the nail on its head.

People whine about insurances pulling out. All they want is for somebody else to pay for their risk. It's their choice to live in that area, they should bear the consequences. It's not like it is or has ever been a secret. Climate change is known for decades now. Many people just chose not to "believe" in it. Well, their choice, but now that sh* hits the fan, they shouldn't come whine that everything gets sprayed with poo.

replies(2): >>42736431 #>>42736992 #
1. mvc ◴[] No.42736992[source]
Please do let me know where I can live that is guaranteed to be safe from unexpected natural disaster.
replies(2): >>42743311 #>>42745303 #
2. fishstock25 ◴[] No.42743311[source]
In your mind, probably.

More seriously, nowhere of course, but if the risk is manageable (a fluffy term to mean predictable and not too high) then you'll find an insurance that covers you. Those natural conditions are dynamic though, so where such insurance is available can be (and is) subject to change. Predictably so. Nobody will provide you with the same car insurance when your car is new compared to 40 years later (same car). Things change. If you don't want your insurance to change, negotiate a 40-year term. Forcing them is nuts.

3. waterhouse ◴[] No.42745303[source]
Not a guarantee, but it appears there's a nearly 200x difference between the most dangerous and the safest countries in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_d...