←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
476 points spking | 2 comments | 17 Jan 25 00:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.429s | source
Show context
datavirtue ◴[17 Jan 25 01:48 UTC] No.42733193[source]▶
Part of this is that homes are too fancy and large. All of that translates into elevated costs and risks.
replies(2): >>42733264 #>>42734066 #
osigurdson ◴[17 Jan 25 02:00 UTC] No.42733264[source]▶
If people like them, they are not too big or too fancy.
replies(1): >>42733352 #
SideQuark ◴[17 Jan 25 02:15 UTC] No.42733352[source]▶
It is if they cannot afford them. Most people would love far more than they can afford, but reality wins.
replies(1): >>42736800 #
osigurdson ◴[17 Jan 25 12:26 UTC] No.42736800[source]▶
The problem with "people should aim lower" type arguments is eventually everyone is living in a tent.
replies(1): >>42743432 #
1. SideQuark ◴[17 Jan 25 21:25 UTC] No.42743432[source]▶
The problem with slippery slope fallacies is, well, they are a fallacy.

I also see you coupled it with the strawman fallacy, since I didn't claim anything as wide ranging as "people should aim lower."

Pretty impressive to pack so much poor reasoning into one sentence.

Spending within what one can afford is a long running method of resource allocation which has served mankind for millennia, and mankind is now living at a higher standard of living than any point in history.

replies(1): >>42743572 #
2. osigurdson ◴[17 Jan 25 21:42 UTC] No.42743572[source]▶
>> Part of this is that homes are too fancy and large. All of that translates into elevated costs and risks.

I was originally responding to the above parent comment. Agree, if you can't afford it, don't buy it.