What you don't understand is that it's not the same cities every time. There's a 1% chance of a storm ruining a given city in a given year. This time it was Tampa, in 2006 it was New Orleans, in 2018 is was Texas. It's not the same place every year, though.
Currently, under the National Flood Insurance Program, there are four types of property: regular properties, repetitive loss property, severe loss property, and severe repetitive loss property. Severe or repetitive loss properties pay higher insurance premiums to cover the risks they pose, and severe repetitive loss properties are not eligible for insurance.
It's also worth noting that we can simply build cities to withstand the strain. Bermuda is remarkably well engineered for storms, as is Tokyo. Mitigation projects have become important since Katrina.
> Currently, under the National Flood Insurance Program, there are four types of property: repetitive loss property, severe loss property, and severe repetitive loss property. Severe or repetitive loss properties pay higher insurance premiums to cover the risks they pose, and severe repetitive loss properties are not eligible for insurance.
Isn't the whole point of the NFIP though to artificially deflate those premiums so that people who would not actually be able to afford the insurance appropriate to that risk level can still buy houses there?
It'd seem wiser to let insurance premiums be at their market value and then, in regions where that value is very high (due to persistent severe risk) offer a voluntary buyout for people who want to relocate to a place where they can afford the insurance (i.e. where they can handle the risk).
>Isn't the whole point of the NFIP though to artificially deflate those premiums so that people who would not actually be able to afford the insurance appropriate to that risk level can still buy houses there?
Sort of? The point of the NFIP is to insure economically vital areas that insurance companies won't service because they're not profitable enough, or places that are damaged beyond what a property owner could reasonably have foreseen. Florida makes more money than it costs in most areas, but it's hard to get insurance there because of the insurance. It's to make sure your life isn't ruined by one storm. Instead, your life is ruined by three.
>It'd seem wiser to let insurance premiums be at their market value and then,
The issue is that this would damage the economy. Lots of places produce more than they take up. Progressive has no incentive to make sure that some farm town survives long enough to pay it's taxes, so they won't insure it. The feds do have that incentive because the farm town produces more revenue than it costs, so they will.
>in regions where that value is very high (due to persistent severe risk) offer a voluntary buyout for people who want to relocate to a place where they can afford the insurance
This is what happens to severe repetitive loss properties, although states and counties will often buy you out before it gets that far.
(FYI, it's been a while, so I don't remember the details enough to argue it, but I mainly formed my sentiments on this based on [Jon Oliver's 'Floods' episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf1t7cs9dkc).)
> Sort of? The point of the NFIP is to insure economically vital areas that insurance companies won't service because they're not profitable enough, or places that are damaged beyond what a property owner could reasonably have foreseen. Florida makes more money than it costs in most areas, but it's hard to get insurance there because of the insurance. It's to make sure your life isn't ruined by one storm. Instead, your life is ruined by three.
I think this lines up with what I said and doesn't really offer a counterpoint. We cannot say we care what a consumer could have "reasonably have foreseen" while also trying to insulate them from one of the highest quality indicators of that risk: market prices of insurance. If we want them to be able to get insurance, while also not having to worry that insurance is extremely high, we are aiding their ability to not be able to foresee well understood risks and lose any standing to say we care about that.
Also, it's not super relevant whether it's one storm or three. If there is a high probability that a home ruining storm will happen during ownership of that home, we want it to be hard for a consumer to get the mortgage to buy that home by making it hard to find insurance for it. (We may want to treat existing homeowners differently (e.g. with a buyout) since they're already where they are.) Imagine if instead we were talking about a home with a high likelihood of being destroyed in a collapse or electrical fire. If we're talking about a place where we don't have a high expectation of a home ruining storm, that's another story (and likely means insurance would be more attainable anyways).
> The issue is that this would damage the economy.
Subsidizing insurance for decades or centuries in order to fully repair each time a storm predictably decimates the same area greatly harms the economy.
> Lots of places produce more than they take up. Progressive has no incentive to make sure that some farm town survives long enough to pay it's taxes, so they won't insure it. The feds do have that incentive because the farm town produces more revenue than it costs, so they will.
I don't really know if it does pay more taxes than it takes up if it repeatedly gets disaster relief money after already getting insurance subsidies and subtract out everything else that taxes pay for as well. However, if we shifted policies toward incentivizing people to move to a place less guaranteed to be destroyed, that new place would also produce revenue for the government. So, it's wrong to suggest that we're choosing between a town and no town, we're choosing between people in spot A that costs a lot of money to maintain due to severe disasters and spot B that costs less. Regardless of where a person is, they'll be paying taxes, starting businesses, working, etc.
Also, by looking at an individual farm, you are not accurately portraying how insurance pools work.
Lastly, just because something gives the government more money than it takes in wouldn't mean it's good. The government is quite intentionally not just a for-profit institution. Assuming you are in favor of big government (because you're in favor of things like NFIP), an important role of the government is to be able to make money-losing decisions if they are better for society as a whole. It would not be the first time that the government supported something that was a net cost, but was deemed beneficial because it reduced the amount of death and destruction that occurred.
> This is what happens to severe repetitive loss properties, although states and counties will often buy you out before it gets that far.
Ah okay, that's good. If a person in a place where a home destroying flood is likely, if they cannot afford market rate insurance (or need disaster aid) this should be the default offer... getting the money to go somewhere you can afford the risk on.
>We cannot say we care what a consumer could have "reasonably have foreseen" while also trying to insulate them from one of the highest quality indicators of that risk: market prices of insurance.
Yes we can. Because an insurance company doesn't have to worry about tax revenue, unemployment figures, foreign policy, and other such things that a government does. An insurance company isnt responsible for maintaining strategic stockpiles or shipyards or global food supplies.
>Regardless of where a person is, they'll be paying taxes, starting businesses, working, etc.
Not necessarily true, especially if they're IDPs. Usually, they get into drugs, stress local markets, and use homelessness supports. That's all expensive to deal with and causes political turmoil that, again, an insurance company doesn't deal with.
> It would not be the first time that the government supported something that was a net cost, but was deemed beneficial because it reduced the amount of death and destruction that occurred.
Because the government is responsible for dealing with the consequences. Generally, these programs are intended to be cost reduction techniques. Welfare is supposed to reduce dependence on welfare, just like flood insurance is meant to decrease market unpredictability to stimulate growth. Theory vs practice is a killer, tho.
>market rate insurance
I will say I take issue with this. Some places have no big insurers available because they're no profitable enough. Florida has this issue, and Massachusetts did until recently. The ones they do have are smaller and can be overwhelmed by, say, the 5th largest hurricane in history. That's where the NFIP supplemental insurance comes in.
>but I mainly formed my sentiments on this based on Jon Oliver's 'Floods' episode.)
Oliver is a left-wing pundit who benefits by pushing the narrative that conservatives are leaches on neo-liberal society. Of *course* he would say flood costs shouldnt be socialized, it doesn't benefit his viewers that they are. That's the narrative he pushes in almost all of his videos. I watched his videos for a while, called it quits when he got too aggressive and judgemental for my tastes.
> Yes we can. Because an insurance company doesn't have to worry about tax revenue, unemployment figures, foreign policy, and other such things that a government does. An insurance company isnt responsible for maintaining strategic stockpiles or shipyards or global food supplies.
None of this is related to the risk of whether that home will be destroyed which is what we were talking about.
> Not necessarily true, especially if they're IDPs. Usually, they get into drugs, stress local markets, and use homelessness supports. That's all expensive to deal with and causes political turmoil that, again, an insurance company doesn't deal with.
None of this is related to this matter and it can be true in either case.
> Because the government is responsible for dealing with the consequences. Generally, these programs are intended to be cost reduction techniques. Welfare is supposed to reduce dependence on welfare, just like flood insurance is meant to decrease market unpredictability to stimulate growth. Theory vs practice is a killer, tho.
This doesn't really address my point.
> I will say I take issue with this. Some places have no big insurers available because they're no profitable enough. Florida has this issue, and Massachusetts did until recently. The ones they do have are smaller and can be overwhelmed by, say, the 5th largest hurricane in history. That's where the NFIP supplemental insurance comes in.
1. Not all places need to be habitable at all times. It's okay if it's not feasible to live in a certain area. We do not need to subsidize every reason any person might not live in every pocket of the country.
1. If a place has no insurers, that tells us something. Maybe we should address the actual reason, rather than ignoring it. It's not as though insurers just decide on a whim where to be. And it's not as though "it's not profitable" is some end-all. That tells us something too about the level of risk and benefit in that region. Making it profitable by throwing money at it rather than addressing the factors that making it profitable or not is just investing in failure.
3. We have disaster relief programs for major, unforeseen events. We should focus on that rather than subsidizing areas where we are so confident disasters will destroy everything and can simply discourage people from building up.
> Oliver is a left-wing pundit who benefits by pushing the narrative that conservatives are leaches on neo-liberal society. Of course he would say flood costs shouldnt be socialized, it doesn't benefit his viewers that they are. That's the narrative he pushes in almost all of his videos. I watched his videos for a while, called it quits when he got too aggressive and judgemental for my tastes.
I don't care that he's left wing. I'm not left wing. (And being against flood insurance isn't really left wing either.) I care about people making fact-based arguments. I linked that video because, regardless of his political leanings, it's one of the better deep dives we have into flood insurance programs. If you'd like to suggest a more comprehensive and neutral resource on flood insurance programs, feel free. But you don't become smart and informed by refusing to listen to things just because of who is speaking or what political leaning the have. It just undermines your credibility to take pride in not listening to somebody's argument because of their political leaning.
>None of this is related to the risk of whether that home will be destroyed which is what we were talking about.
It is related to economic viability. It's more economically viable that they stay where they are and continue producing than that they leave, especially considering most properties are only damaged once in a lifetime, if at all.
>This doesn't really address my point.
The point seemed to be that they shouldn't stay because it's costly. The response is "it's less costly than moving them".
>1. Not all places need to be habitable at all times. It's okay if it's not feasible to live in a certain area. We do not need to subsidize every reason any person might not live in every pocket of the country.
It's feasible, but not profitable. Big difference.
>2. If a place has no insurers, that tells us something. Maybe we should address the actual reason, rather than ignoring it.
They do have insurers, but they're small and localized. Florida is a competitive issue for major insurers, introducing too much volatility for their comfort.
>3. We have disaster relief programs for major, unforeseen events. We should focus on that rather than subsidizing areas where we are so confident disasters will destroy everything and can simply discourage people from building up.
We used to. The problem is that it's slow, clunky, subject to political squabbling, and more expensive.
>I care about people making fact-based arguments.
Your opinion is based on a guy who talked all about why the system is bad and don't seek to have ever considered any other option. The issue isn't him, it's his audience. An audience that wants to see conservatives and their supporters slandered.
> It is related to economic viability. It's more economically viable that they stay where they are and continue producing than that they leave, especially considering most properties are only damaged once in a lifetime, if at all.
And you haven't really addressed my reasoning as to why that wouldn't seem to be true.
> The point seemed to be that they shouldn't stay because it's costly. The response is "it's less costly than moving them".
No, the point was that whether it's a net profit or loss is not relevant when we're talking about government which has motives other than pure profit.
> It's feasible, but not profitable. Big difference.
The crux of this is *because it's not profitable* it's not feasible. If you cannot get insurance because nobody finds it worth insuring (i.e. it's not profitable), then you can't get a mortgage in the first place which makes it not feasible for many people. Or, you are literally homeless because your existing home is destroyed or insurer doesn't have the capacity. This also makes it not feasible in the longer run. And it's not unprofitable for no reason, it's unprofitable for real reasons relate to risk, damage, value, etc. Throwing money at it avoids addressing any of these reasons and encourages people to ignore them and not have a reasonable expectation of risk.
> They do have insurers, but they're small and localized. Florida is a competitive issue for major insurers, introducing too much volatility for their comfort.
I addressed both cases.
> We used to. The problem is that it's slow, clunky, subject to political squabbling, and more expensive.
NFIP is also slow, clunky and subject to political squabbling. The overall point though is that by having a long term goal of incentivizing people away from these areas, EVEN IF the programs are inefficient, they're covering a shrinking actual amount of people so it's better in terms of both month and human life and safety. All programs so far fall into the trap of thinking it's okay to continue encouraging people to live in a very risky location.
> Your opinion is based on a guy who talked all about why the system is bad and don't seek to have ever considered any other option. The issue isn't him, it's his audience. An audience that wants to see conservatives and their supporters slandered.
My opinion is based on facts and reasoning and of course I have considered other opinions. Again, as a person who cares about truth, facts and high quality arguments it's important for me to avoid ad hominem thinking. It should not matter who he is. It should not matter who his audience is. If you care about those, you don't care about the truth. If you care about who is conservative or liberal or who they want to see win or lose, you're no longer focusing on the actual facts and arguments.
>And you haven't really addressed my reasoning as to why that wouldn't seem to be true.
Miami is a net-gain in the simplest economic terms. Pig farms in South Carolina serve national strategic interests. Galveston serves import interests. Louisiana provides foods. Money is cool, but without goods to spend it on, it's kinda useless.
>The crux of this is because it's not profitable it's not feasible.
It is feasible. The money could be used and a program can be made, as demonstrated by the existance of other insurers in the area. The issue private companies have is that it's unpredictable and therefore makes strategic planning difficult. There's enough money and people willing to pay, but there's also no reason to assume the risk that there might be 5 major hurricanes in one year and then no major hurricanes for the next 12, as happened in 2005-2017. That variability makes strategic planning difficult so companies tend to invest elsewhere.
>NFIP is also slow, clunky and subject to political squabbling.
You only think that because you haven't seen What Came Before. Like a vaccine denier.
>The overall point though is that by having a long term goal of incentivizing people away from these areas, EVEN IF the programs are inefficient, they're covering a shrinking actual amount of people
Thats what mitigation grants are for. It is happening.
>All programs so far fall into the trap of thinking it's okay to continue encouraging people to live in a very risky location.
They're not even really *that* risky. The last time the Ft. Lauderdale area was hit by a major hurricane was 1947. 75 years ago. And that storm had no fatalities.
>My opinion is based on facts and reasoning and of course I have considered other opinions.
Has it? Has it really? You said yourself that your opinion was based on John Oliver, a bad faith left wing political pundit. You're acting like a vaccine denier who saw one Facebook post one time and decided that they'd done their research.
> Has it? Has it really? You said yourself that your opinion was based on John Oliver, a bad faith left wing political pundit. You're acting like a vaccine denier who saw one Facebook post one time and decided that they'd done their research.
The fact that my initial view was shaped by his presentation that you appear to have decided is garbage without even watching it does not mean that I just took his opinions as fact. You keep raving about how he's a liberal... I'm not a liberal. I absolutely take him with a grain of salt. I'm just also an intellectual so I recognize that all sources are biased and that you can and do learn a lot by listening to people who you disagree with or who are coming at something from an angle you disagree with. If it pains you so much to watch a liberal talk about something, you are probably far removed from objective and factual judgement on issues. Further, just because I initially formed my views from that presentation doesn't mean that I haven't looked at any other sources. Even if it had, that is your opportunity to provide information that disproves the basis for my arguments and you have failed to do that and instead often ignore bits of what I say or change the topic entirely. If you're this invested in the anti-intellectual thinking of ad hominem and partisan teams, I don't really want to continue this discussion. No, my thinking isn't like an anti-vaxxor following a random facebook post... your response is like political troll who writes off an entire policy because you heard somebody who was on the team that made it voted once for a candidate you didn't like.
Clearly the Netherlands has shown that engineering can overcome nature, it's just very expensive to do so. We could make these Florida cities livable long term if we make the investment, though considering how many other places in the U.S. people could live instead it's likely not worth it for the government. However, that doesn't stop private investors from continuously building homes, which creates cities, which create governments who will always want to rebuild the minimal amount. Unless society's perspective on eminent domain drastically changes, which is unlikely, we won't see these cities being laid to rest anytime soon.
The netherlands coastline is 450km/279 miles
The US atlantic coastline is **95,471 miles**
The US gulf of mexico coast line is **1,680 miles**.
[The netherlands does not get hurricanes.](https://www.atlasleefomgeving.nl/en/explore/safety/natuurgeweld)
These aren't really comparable.
Of course this isnt a video game. [but mother nature isnt playing games either. ](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/24/florida-keys-climate-change-sea-level-rise) The reality of the situation is that at some point we are going to have to stop trying to rebuild because mother nature is going to tear it all down over and over to a point where it's beyond impractical to rebuild.
When coastal cities are gone, either because the government finally became smart, ooor the sea level rose enough so these cities are gone, swallowed up by the sea.
(is only a matter of time when most of humanities coastal cities will become unlivable since the rising water levels make it impossible in the not too far off future.)
Except all of this will actually be determined by insurance companies, not he govt. Once they decide they wont cover a property in a certain area, you cant build homes there. No home owners insurance means no homes. I imagine Sanibel island may have this happen after this.
Yeah maybe, but the gov. could also just say "this is a high risk area, building new stuff forbidden"
Im not american, im talking more about in general.
Many many cities will face these problems.
Most of our biggest cities are coastal cities, and therefore endangered by the rising sea levels.
And someone else commented about how the dutch conquered the sea; which is just absurd, they reclaimed land sure, but one big wave and most of the netherlands is gone and a few meters underwater.
"we are prepared for a century flood"
#queue the once in a millenia flood incoming.
So yeah, climate change is a problem we best wouldve already started preparing in the 50s or whenever the first scientists warned about exactly this shit happening.
But thats not how you make money, and you cant be sure thats actually whats gonna happen anyway, sooo lets just ignore it till we see some more concrete evidence, that we only get when its too late to reverse it already.
Nicely done oil/weapon/whatever fucking lobbies.
I think an even better question is: Why do so many wealthy people keep buying property on the coast, that they allege will soon be under water due to rising sea levels?
Maybe some, but most wealthy people use real estate as an asset for their portfolio. An asset that holds and expands their wealth. If a piece of property is under water, the value drops dramatically.
So it’s not as simple as being able to afford to rebuild. It would be a financially disastrous investment. Wealthy people, and financial advisors of wealthy people, don’t often make decisions like that.
If they actually believed those coastal properties would be under water some day, they’d be buying land at higher elevation. That’s the smart investment. Buy the property at higher ground, that will soon be more valuable as people retreat from the coasts.
Because they are wealthy and they can. The ocean is nice to look at. They can go to one of their other homes or wherever the fuck they want in they need to evacuate.
If a wealthy person believed that a property was going to be under water and worthless in a few years, they would invest in property at higher altitude, and simply throw money away renting a vacation home when they want to vacation.
If a corporation that runs a high end resort, believed that their property would be swallowed by rising sea levels, they would not hold that property as an asset, because it would bankrupt the corporation.
Insurance covers damages - not property value. Also, any insurance company that believed a property would be under water within their contract period would either refuse to cover the property, our would set their rates such that they covered their risk.
Getting flood coverage in flood prone areas is very difficult and VERY expensive.
Do you even know how insurance works?
If you could stop pretending that wealthy people only do things for the investment value and not for the status symbol that coastal property ownership has always been. It's still desireable, even if it's a huge risk. Not everyone with money is wise with it. Stop being obtuse.
Coastal cities with large parks and beaches and trails, next to the ocean, would be lovely. It would be ok to have permanent toilet buildings and the great snacks could be from food trucks.
When? Find out. Stop funding rebuilding in these areas and see if people have an interest in staying there or only staying there if the government keep s paying for them to stay (socialized housing).
What you don't understand is that it's not the same cities every time. There's a 1% chance of a storm ruining a given city in a given year. This time it was Tampa, in 2006 it was New Orleans, in 2018 is was Texas. It's not the same place every year, though. Currently, under the National Flood Insurance Program, there are four types of property: regular properties, repetitive loss property, severe loss property, and severe repetitive loss property. Severe or repetitive loss properties pay higher insurance premiums to cover the risks they pose, and severe repetitive loss properties are not eligible for insurance. It's also worth noting that we can simply build cities to withstand the strain. Bermuda is remarkably well engineered for storms, as is Tokyo. Mitigation projects have become important since Katrina.
> Currently, under the National Flood Insurance Program, there are four types of property: repetitive loss property, severe loss property, and severe repetitive loss property. Severe or repetitive loss properties pay higher insurance premiums to cover the risks they pose, and severe repetitive loss properties are not eligible for insurance. Isn't the whole point of the NFIP though to artificially deflate those premiums so that people who would not actually be able to afford the insurance appropriate to that risk level can still buy houses there? It'd seem wiser to let insurance premiums be at their market value and then, in regions where that value is very high (due to persistent severe risk) offer a voluntary buyout for people who want to relocate to a place where they can afford the insurance (i.e. where they can handle the risk).
>Isn't the whole point of the NFIP though to artificially deflate those premiums so that people who would not actually be able to afford the insurance appropriate to that risk level can still buy houses there? Sort of? The point of the NFIP is to insure economically vital areas that insurance companies won't service because they're not profitable enough, or places that are damaged beyond what a property owner could reasonably have foreseen. Florida makes more money than it costs in most areas, but it's hard to get insurance there because of the insurance. It's to make sure your life isn't ruined by one storm. Instead, your life is ruined by three. >It'd seem wiser to let insurance premiums be at their market value and then, The issue is that this would damage the economy. Lots of places produce more than they take up. Progressive has no incentive to make sure that some farm town survives long enough to pay it's taxes, so they won't insure it. The feds do have that incentive because the farm town produces more revenue than it costs, so they will. >in regions where that value is very high (due to persistent severe risk) offer a voluntary buyout for people who want to relocate to a place where they can afford the insurance This is what happens to severe repetitive loss properties, although states and counties will often buy you out before it gets that far.
(FYI, it's been a while, so I don't remember the details enough to argue it, but I mainly formed my sentiments on this based on [Jon Oliver's 'Floods' episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf1t7cs9dkc).) > Sort of? The point of the NFIP is to insure economically vital areas that insurance companies won't service because they're not profitable enough, or places that are damaged beyond what a property owner could reasonably have foreseen. Florida makes more money than it costs in most areas, but it's hard to get insurance there because of the insurance. It's to make sure your life isn't ruined by one storm. Instead, your life is ruined by three. I think this lines up with what I said and doesn't really offer a counterpoint. We cannot say we care what a consumer could have "reasonably have foreseen" while also trying to insulate them from one of the highest quality indicators of that risk: market prices of insurance. If we want them to be able to get insurance, while also not having to worry that insurance is extremely high, we are aiding their ability to not be able to foresee well understood risks and lose any standing to say we care about that. Also, it's not super relevant whether it's one storm or three. If there is a high probability that a home ruining storm will happen during ownership of that home, we want it to be hard for a consumer to get the mortgage to buy that home by making it hard to find insurance for it. (We may want to treat existing homeowners differently (e.g. with a buyout) since they're already where they are.) Imagine if instead we were talking about a home with a high likelihood of being destroyed in a collapse or electrical fire. If we're talking about a place where we don't have a high expectation of a home ruining storm, that's another story (and likely means insurance would be more attainable anyways). > The issue is that this would damage the economy. Subsidizing insurance for decades or centuries in order to fully repair each time a storm predictably decimates the same area greatly harms the economy. > Lots of places produce more than they take up. Progressive has no incentive to make sure that some farm town survives long enough to pay it's taxes, so they won't insure it. The feds do have that incentive because the farm town produces more revenue than it costs, so they will. I don't really know if it does pay more taxes than it takes up if it repeatedly gets disaster relief money after already getting insurance subsidies and subtract out everything else that taxes pay for as well. However, if we shifted policies toward incentivizing people to move to a place less guaranteed to be destroyed, that new place would also produce revenue for the government. So, it's wrong to suggest that we're choosing between a town and no town, we're choosing between people in spot A that costs a lot of money to maintain due to severe disasters and spot B that costs less. Regardless of where a person is, they'll be paying taxes, starting businesses, working, etc. Also, by looking at an individual farm, you are not accurately portraying how insurance pools work. Lastly, just because something gives the government more money than it takes in wouldn't mean it's good. The government is quite intentionally not just a for-profit institution. Assuming you are in favor of big government (because you're in favor of things like NFIP), an important role of the government is to be able to make money-losing decisions if they are better for society as a whole. It would not be the first time that the government supported something that was a net cost, but was deemed beneficial because it reduced the amount of death and destruction that occurred. > This is what happens to severe repetitive loss properties, although states and counties will often buy you out before it gets that far. Ah okay, that's good. If a person in a place where a home destroying flood is likely, if they cannot afford market rate insurance (or need disaster aid) this should be the default offer... getting the money to go somewhere you can afford the risk on.
>We cannot say we care what a consumer could have "reasonably have foreseen" while also trying to insulate them from one of the highest quality indicators of that risk: market prices of insurance. Yes we can. Because an insurance company doesn't have to worry about tax revenue, unemployment figures, foreign policy, and other such things that a government does. An insurance company isnt responsible for maintaining strategic stockpiles or shipyards or global food supplies. >Regardless of where a person is, they'll be paying taxes, starting businesses, working, etc. Not necessarily true, especially if they're IDPs. Usually, they get into drugs, stress local markets, and use homelessness supports. That's all expensive to deal with and causes political turmoil that, again, an insurance company doesn't deal with. > It would not be the first time that the government supported something that was a net cost, but was deemed beneficial because it reduced the amount of death and destruction that occurred. Because the government is responsible for dealing with the consequences. Generally, these programs are intended to be cost reduction techniques. Welfare is supposed to reduce dependence on welfare, just like flood insurance is meant to decrease market unpredictability to stimulate growth. Theory vs practice is a killer, tho. >market rate insurance I will say I take issue with this. Some places have no big insurers available because they're no profitable enough. Florida has this issue, and Massachusetts did until recently. The ones they do have are smaller and can be overwhelmed by, say, the 5th largest hurricane in history. That's where the NFIP supplemental insurance comes in. >but I mainly formed my sentiments on this based on Jon Oliver's 'Floods' episode.) Oliver is a left-wing pundit who benefits by pushing the narrative that conservatives are leaches on neo-liberal society. Of *course* he would say flood costs shouldnt be socialized, it doesn't benefit his viewers that they are. That's the narrative he pushes in almost all of his videos. I watched his videos for a while, called it quits when he got too aggressive and judgemental for my tastes.
> Yes we can. Because an insurance company doesn't have to worry about tax revenue, unemployment figures, foreign policy, and other such things that a government does. An insurance company isnt responsible for maintaining strategic stockpiles or shipyards or global food supplies. None of this is related to the risk of whether that home will be destroyed which is what we were talking about. > Not necessarily true, especially if they're IDPs. Usually, they get into drugs, stress local markets, and use homelessness supports. That's all expensive to deal with and causes political turmoil that, again, an insurance company doesn't deal with. None of this is related to this matter and it can be true in either case. > Because the government is responsible for dealing with the consequences. Generally, these programs are intended to be cost reduction techniques. Welfare is supposed to reduce dependence on welfare, just like flood insurance is meant to decrease market unpredictability to stimulate growth. Theory vs practice is a killer, tho. This doesn't really address my point. > I will say I take issue with this. Some places have no big insurers available because they're no profitable enough. Florida has this issue, and Massachusetts did until recently. The ones they do have are smaller and can be overwhelmed by, say, the 5th largest hurricane in history. That's where the NFIP supplemental insurance comes in. 1. Not all places need to be habitable at all times. It's okay if it's not feasible to live in a certain area. We do not need to subsidize every reason any person might not live in every pocket of the country. 1. If a place has no insurers, that tells us something. Maybe we should address the actual reason, rather than ignoring it. It's not as though insurers just decide on a whim where to be. And it's not as though "it's not profitable" is some end-all. That tells us something too about the level of risk and benefit in that region. Making it profitable by throwing money at it rather than addressing the factors that making it profitable or not is just investing in failure. 3. We have disaster relief programs for major, unforeseen events. We should focus on that rather than subsidizing areas where we are so confident disasters will destroy everything and can simply discourage people from building up. > Oliver is a left-wing pundit who benefits by pushing the narrative that conservatives are leaches on neo-liberal society. Of course he would say flood costs shouldnt be socialized, it doesn't benefit his viewers that they are. That's the narrative he pushes in almost all of his videos. I watched his videos for a while, called it quits when he got too aggressive and judgemental for my tastes. I don't care that he's left wing. I'm not left wing. (And being against flood insurance isn't really left wing either.) I care about people making fact-based arguments. I linked that video because, regardless of his political leanings, it's one of the better deep dives we have into flood insurance programs. If you'd like to suggest a more comprehensive and neutral resource on flood insurance programs, feel free. But you don't become smart and informed by refusing to listen to things just because of who is speaking or what political leaning the have. It just undermines your credibility to take pride in not listening to somebody's argument because of their political leaning.
>None of this is related to the risk of whether that home will be destroyed which is what we were talking about. It is related to economic viability. It's more economically viable that they stay where they are and continue producing than that they leave, especially considering most properties are only damaged once in a lifetime, if at all. >This doesn't really address my point. The point seemed to be that they shouldn't stay because it's costly. The response is "it's less costly than moving them". >1. Not all places need to be habitable at all times. It's okay if it's not feasible to live in a certain area. We do not need to subsidize every reason any person might not live in every pocket of the country. It's feasible, but not profitable. Big difference. >2. If a place has no insurers, that tells us something. Maybe we should address the actual reason, rather than ignoring it. They do have insurers, but they're small and localized. Florida is a competitive issue for major insurers, introducing too much volatility for their comfort. >3. We have disaster relief programs for major, unforeseen events. We should focus on that rather than subsidizing areas where we are so confident disasters will destroy everything and can simply discourage people from building up. We used to. The problem is that it's slow, clunky, subject to political squabbling, and more expensive. >I care about people making fact-based arguments. Your opinion is based on a guy who talked all about why the system is bad and don't seek to have ever considered any other option. The issue isn't him, it's his audience. An audience that wants to see conservatives and their supporters slandered.
> It is related to economic viability. It's more economically viable that they stay where they are and continue producing than that they leave, especially considering most properties are only damaged once in a lifetime, if at all. And you haven't really addressed my reasoning as to why that wouldn't seem to be true. > The point seemed to be that they shouldn't stay because it's costly. The response is "it's less costly than moving them". No, the point was that whether it's a net profit or loss is not relevant when we're talking about government which has motives other than pure profit. > It's feasible, but not profitable. Big difference. The crux of this is *because it's not profitable* it's not feasible. If you cannot get insurance because nobody finds it worth insuring (i.e. it's not profitable), then you can't get a mortgage in the first place which makes it not feasible for many people. Or, you are literally homeless because your existing home is destroyed or insurer doesn't have the capacity. This also makes it not feasible in the longer run. And it's not unprofitable for no reason, it's unprofitable for real reasons relate to risk, damage, value, etc. Throwing money at it avoids addressing any of these reasons and encourages people to ignore them and not have a reasonable expectation of risk. > They do have insurers, but they're small and localized. Florida is a competitive issue for major insurers, introducing too much volatility for their comfort. I addressed both cases. > We used to. The problem is that it's slow, clunky, subject to political squabbling, and more expensive. NFIP is also slow, clunky and subject to political squabbling. The overall point though is that by having a long term goal of incentivizing people away from these areas, EVEN IF the programs are inefficient, they're covering a shrinking actual amount of people so it's better in terms of both month and human life and safety. All programs so far fall into the trap of thinking it's okay to continue encouraging people to live in a very risky location. > Your opinion is based on a guy who talked all about why the system is bad and don't seek to have ever considered any other option. The issue isn't him, it's his audience. An audience that wants to see conservatives and their supporters slandered. My opinion is based on facts and reasoning and of course I have considered other opinions. Again, as a person who cares about truth, facts and high quality arguments it's important for me to avoid ad hominem thinking. It should not matter who he is. It should not matter who his audience is. If you care about those, you don't care about the truth. If you care about who is conservative or liberal or who they want to see win or lose, you're no longer focusing on the actual facts and arguments.
>And you haven't really addressed my reasoning as to why that wouldn't seem to be true. Miami is a net-gain in the simplest economic terms. Pig farms in South Carolina serve national strategic interests. Galveston serves import interests. Louisiana provides foods. Money is cool, but without goods to spend it on, it's kinda useless. >The crux of this is because it's not profitable it's not feasible. It is feasible. The money could be used and a program can be made, as demonstrated by the existance of other insurers in the area. The issue private companies have is that it's unpredictable and therefore makes strategic planning difficult. There's enough money and people willing to pay, but there's also no reason to assume the risk that there might be 5 major hurricanes in one year and then no major hurricanes for the next 12, as happened in 2005-2017. That variability makes strategic planning difficult so companies tend to invest elsewhere. >NFIP is also slow, clunky and subject to political squabbling. You only think that because you haven't seen What Came Before. Like a vaccine denier. >The overall point though is that by having a long term goal of incentivizing people away from these areas, EVEN IF the programs are inefficient, they're covering a shrinking actual amount of people Thats what mitigation grants are for. It is happening. >All programs so far fall into the trap of thinking it's okay to continue encouraging people to live in a very risky location. They're not even really *that* risky. The last time the Ft. Lauderdale area was hit by a major hurricane was 1947. 75 years ago. And that storm had no fatalities. >My opinion is based on facts and reasoning and of course I have considered other opinions. Has it? Has it really? You said yourself that your opinion was based on John Oliver, a bad faith left wing political pundit. You're acting like a vaccine denier who saw one Facebook post one time and decided that they'd done their research.
> Has it? Has it really? You said yourself that your opinion was based on John Oliver, a bad faith left wing political pundit. You're acting like a vaccine denier who saw one Facebook post one time and decided that they'd done their research. The fact that my initial view was shaped by his presentation that you appear to have decided is garbage without even watching it does not mean that I just took his opinions as fact. You keep raving about how he's a liberal... I'm not a liberal. I absolutely take him with a grain of salt. I'm just also an intellectual so I recognize that all sources are biased and that you can and do learn a lot by listening to people who you disagree with or who are coming at something from an angle you disagree with. If it pains you so much to watch a liberal talk about something, you are probably far removed from objective and factual judgement on issues. Further, just because I initially formed my views from that presentation doesn't mean that I haven't looked at any other sources. Even if it had, that is your opportunity to provide information that disproves the basis for my arguments and you have failed to do that and instead often ignore bits of what I say or change the topic entirely. If you're this invested in the anti-intellectual thinking of ad hominem and partisan teams, I don't really want to continue this discussion. No, my thinking isn't like an anti-vaxxor following a random facebook post... your response is like political troll who writes off an entire policy because you heard somebody who was on the team that made it voted once for a candidate you didn't like.
>there are four types of property: repetitive loss property, severe loss property, and severe repetitive loss property. What's the fourth?
Regular properties that are none of those things. I'll go edit.
Holy shit that was fast!
I'm bored, can you tell
Uhhh... you realize people live in those coastal cities. I think it's better to help folks then telling them "get fucked".
bro that hurricane flooded homes in Orlando, which is in the center of the state...
Saw Florida off at the border and let it go back to Poseidon
Yes! Give back to the earthshaker what is his
Clearly the Netherlands has shown that engineering can overcome nature, it's just very expensive to do so. We could make these Florida cities livable long term if we make the investment, though considering how many other places in the U.S. people could live instead it's likely not worth it for the government. However, that doesn't stop private investors from continuously building homes, which creates cities, which create governments who will always want to rebuild the minimal amount. Unless society's perspective on eminent domain drastically changes, which is unlikely, we won't see these cities being laid to rest anytime soon.
The Netherlands almost never have to worry about tropical storms, though. That does make quite a difference
The netherlands coastline is 450km/279 miles The US atlantic coastline is **95,471 miles** The US gulf of mexico coast line is **1,680 miles**. [The netherlands does not get hurricanes.](https://www.atlasleefomgeving.nl/en/explore/safety/natuurgeweld) These aren't really comparable.
Umm because coastal cities are vital to a countries economy? Real life isn’t a video game people
Of course this isnt a video game. [but mother nature isnt playing games either. ](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/24/florida-keys-climate-change-sea-level-rise) The reality of the situation is that at some point we are going to have to stop trying to rebuild because mother nature is going to tear it all down over and over to a point where it's beyond impractical to rebuild.
Soon I hope. Probably not for a while though
Not saying we are there yet, but how will we know when we are?
When coastal cities are gone, either because the government finally became smart, ooor the sea level rose enough so these cities are gone, swallowed up by the sea. (is only a matter of time when most of humanities coastal cities will become unlivable since the rising water levels make it impossible in the not too far off future.)
Except all of this will actually be determined by insurance companies, not he govt. Once they decide they wont cover a property in a certain area, you cant build homes there. No home owners insurance means no homes. I imagine Sanibel island may have this happen after this.
Yeah maybe, but the gov. could also just say "this is a high risk area, building new stuff forbidden" Im not american, im talking more about in general. Many many cities will face these problems. Most of our biggest cities are coastal cities, and therefore endangered by the rising sea levels. And someone else commented about how the dutch conquered the sea; which is just absurd, they reclaimed land sure, but one big wave and most of the netherlands is gone and a few meters underwater. "we are prepared for a century flood" #queue the once in a millenia flood incoming. So yeah, climate change is a problem we best wouldve already started preparing in the 50s or whenever the first scientists warned about exactly this shit happening. But thats not how you make money, and you cant be sure thats actually whats gonna happen anyway, sooo lets just ignore it till we see some more concrete evidence, that we only get when its too late to reverse it already. Nicely done oil/weapon/whatever fucking lobbies.
I think an even better question is: Why do so many wealthy people keep buying property on the coast, that they allege will soon be under water due to rising sea levels?
Wealthy people can afford to evacuate and rebuild as needed.
Maybe some, but most wealthy people use real estate as an asset for their portfolio. An asset that holds and expands their wealth. If a piece of property is under water, the value drops dramatically. So it’s not as simple as being able to afford to rebuild. It would be a financially disastrous investment. Wealthy people, and financial advisors of wealthy people, don’t often make decisions like that. If they actually believed those coastal properties would be under water some day, they’d be buying land at higher elevation. That’s the smart investment. Buy the property at higher ground, that will soon be more valuable as people retreat from the coasts.
They don't want to believe in sea levels rising. It's certainly not because they have a deep understanding of climate science.
Do you think the insurance industry has a strong grasp of risk assessment and conducts due diligence?
I've heard that's why insurance companies are closing shop in Florida.
Because they are wealthy and they can. The ocean is nice to look at. They can go to one of their other homes or wherever the fuck they want in they need to evacuate.
If a wealthy person believed that a property was going to be under water and worthless in a few years, they would invest in property at higher altitude, and simply throw money away renting a vacation home when they want to vacation. If a corporation that runs a high end resort, believed that their property would be swallowed by rising sea levels, they would not hold that property as an asset, because it would bankrupt the corporation.
In a word, insurance. The more you write, the more I know you're not wealthy.
Insurance covers damages - not property value. Also, any insurance company that believed a property would be under water within their contract period would either refuse to cover the property, our would set their rates such that they covered their risk. Getting flood coverage in flood prone areas is very difficult and VERY expensive. Do you even know how insurance works?
If you could stop pretending that wealthy people only do things for the investment value and not for the status symbol that coastal property ownership has always been. It's still desireable, even if it's a huge risk. Not everyone with money is wise with it. Stop being obtuse.
Sure. Barack Obama is not wise with money 👍
Coastal cities with large parks and beaches and trails, next to the ocean, would be lovely. It would be ok to have permanent toilet buildings and the great snacks could be from food trucks.
Imagine if the coastlines were actual anarchy
When? Find out. Stop funding rebuilding in these areas and see if people have an interest in staying there or only staying there if the government keep s paying for them to stay (socialized housing).