←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.694s | source
Show context
bluedevil2k ◴[] No.42733208[source]
Like we see in California, when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave. Same in Florida. If the free market truly was allowed run normally, the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there. Is that a bad thing? If someone was living in a house near where they tested missiles, we'd call them crazy. At what point can we say the same about people building and rebuilding over and over in these disaster areas.
replies(20): >>42733219 #>>42733293 #>>42733338 #>>42733367 #>>42733486 #>>42733536 #>>42733984 #>>42734013 #>>42734047 #>>42734060 #>>42734202 #>>42734459 #>>42734714 #>>42734874 #>>42739590 #>>42740487 #>>42741749 #>>42742138 #>>42743881 #>>42744799 #
zeroonetwothree ◴[] No.42733367[source]
Clearly it’s not true that “no one” could afford to live there. And if demand was low then the housing would become more affordable
replies(1): >>42733482 #
sadeshmukh ◴[] No.42733482[source]
No one can truly afford to live there, if you price in the cost of insurance. The only reason people live there is because they haven't hit the 1/100 chance yet.
replies(2): >>42734131 #>>42740795 #
1. therealdrag0 ◴[] No.42740795[source]
If you’ve actually done the calculations with real numbers share the math. Otherwise stop assuming the conclusion.
replies(1): >>42744672 #
2. sadeshmukh ◴[] No.42744672[source]
The calculation was done by the insurers who refuse to insure the area, or must subsidize all insurance with nearby policies.
replies(1): >>42744865 #
3. therealdrag0 ◴[] No.42744865[source]
Surely there are rates at which they’d would insure the area? And you have shared no data on who is or is not willing to pay those rates.