←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
pestaa ◴[] No.42736431[source]
But this cuts both ways. The insurers chose to provide their services in the area for the amount of money agreed upon. If anyone was more aware of the risks and probabilities, it's them.

Why do they get to pull out now when it's time to hold their end of the contract?

replies(2): >>42736511 #>>42741507 #
1. SirMaster ◴[] No.42741507[source]
California law limits how high the insurance companies can charge for premiums. Did that law or those limits exist when they started offering coverage in the area?

Maybe they didn't, and then the law or limits were imposed at a time when the insurance companies needed to increase the premiums to match the new risk. But if the law prevents them, then they have no other choice but to pull out. Why would they as a business stay if the risk is to great for the premiums they are allowed to charge? They certainly are not obligated to stay.