As a retired carpenter, one of the problems is how we build our homes. Our homes are not designed to be resilient, and they're not designed to withstand all that nature has to give. They are designed to sell products. They are designed around the industry, not around the home owner. We could build much better homes if we wanted to. They wouldn't have to cost much more, they would just have to be designed properly, using proper materials. This whole square box, stick frame, wood covered, tar based roof building concept is stupid. It's mostly 18th century design.
I used to build in Northern California and remember all the times the state tried to regulate wood siding and shingles in fire prone areas and how the industry lobbied to prevent it. The last place I lived in up in gold country had a 300' fire perimeter of closely cut grass, no veg near the structure...
I designed my home. Its roof can take 140 mph winds its walls are all ICF home heats and cools 70% without any moving parts just passively, its so fire resistant my insurer gave me all discounts. I'm in Wisconsin but I over engineered the roof designed to not lift with wind and is all hurricane strapped.
They might be building, but in the past couple of years it has become pretty hard to insure coastal homes in Florida. Even the "last resort" insurer is wildly expensive
Have seen ads for "Valencia" in FL. Prices range from $400k to $2m. I should be so lucky! Will continue to live in "fly over country," or consider Patagonia.
In Nova Scotia, where I live, the provincial Conservative government was too afraid of wealthy developers, and backed away from a coastal protection plan, just last month. I’ll bet my paycheque that when the inevitable happens, the broader populace will bail out wealthy developers..
I’m not saying that this is the ultimate answer, but if the federal government is going to ensure the public against all of these climate change disasters, it’s going to need tax dollars in order to be able to pay out, and wouldn’t paying out be just that much more easily done if huge corporations and the super rich actually paid their fair share of the tax burden so that there was money in the pot to pay out. It’s always assumed that when it comes to the federal government. The burden is gonna fall on the little guy, you know the hard-working underappreciated men and women who get up every day and go to work to pay the bills and put food on the table. It never seems to be part of the equation that Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Amazon, Tesla, Walmart, etc. should actually be paying their fair share of the taxes that are required to keep the country up and running so that people can actually get to work do their jobs make the products provide the services that generate the money that they need to put food on their table and keep the rich rich. I think Joe Biden knows exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it when he says that he wants to reinstitute a minimum 15% tax on the wealthy corporations and individuals in America. And I think that’s fair.
I agree 100%!! If we truly had tax justice in this country based on the strength and broadness of our shoulders, many issues (like insurance) would be much more manageable. As it is now, the wealthy are perniciously misallocated carbon footprints engaging in pecuniary gluttony.
Well, that sounds good. However, if all we do is pay for the EFFECTS of Climate Change (and its subset, Global Warming), that can be self-defeating, in the Long Run. We have to implement Policies that deal with the root CAUSES of Climate Change (by burning less Fossil Fuel and putting LESS CO2 in the air). However, since a large part of the American Electorate does not "believe" that CO2 warms the Earth and does not "believe" that Climate Change is REAL, then it will be an uphill battle that could be LOST.
Rebates for projects that alleviate the problem is better than taxes, we need the economy of the world to ramp up for this change, not down, and targeted relief for those doing things that are multi tiered and linked is a good way to stimulate the change.
MAGA are a people who are misinformed and emotionally traumatised into irrational beliefs (seriously UFO hearings, lizard people and jewish space lasers). If they had the information and the knowledge of the means to deal with these problems then they would be less dramatic about everything. Perspective and proportion are what makes those different to us so much more appealing and less scary. There is no left in the world, particularly the US and moderates are what will keep us all in the "middle of the road". No ones freedom has to come at the expense of some else especially when it is so importatn that we all work together.@@herbertrodriguez9236
Well, of course. Insurance companies are structured to protect themselves against losses, not to protect everyone else. This can't possibly be a surprise to anyone.
A great book about the disaster that lies ahead because of climate change is called "the great displacement". Basically there's going to be a huge internal migration in the U.S. because homes are simply going to be uninsurable if they are below the mason dixon line or on either coast.
TBPH, I wouldn't be surprised if lots of places get upzoned, and higher density buildings start showing up along the coasts. Would probably be more insurable.
The Midwest is in for a surprise if it thinks it is safe from increasing natural catastrophes. And naturally an increase in population will bring about similar results in the insurance market.
Our government used to assist us in a big way during a natural disaster... until Katrina. A proper government would shrink its military, stop the wars and attend to its people's needs.
There is no mention in this video of the obvious solution (in the wealthier countries anyway and for now). If your house flooded or burned down, take that as an opportunity to move somewhere where that is not likely to happen again. By making it possible to live in places nature has reclaimed, we create an expensive situation. If rich people want to use their own money to live in a place where they will have to rebuild their home twice in a decade, fine. I am sure they have the servants to help with the cleanup, designers to shop for new furnishings, personal stylists for a new wardrobe, and of course have no shortage of cash to rebuild a bigger and better home. That's their perogative. For the rest of us, that's not a workable lifestyle.
I read that in the New York area after Hurricane Sandy federal authorities wanted residents whose homes had been destroyed to move inland and rebuild in a safer place and to leave destroyed areas as parks and naturalized areas because FEMA knows that their is a significant risk that the same neighborhoods could be destroyed again by a future storm or by sea level rise but local governments wanted residents to rebuild just where the destroyed homes were because parks and naturalized areas don't pay municipal taxes - home owners do. I imagine that the same is true in every coastal municipality. Federal authorities know that the sensible thing is for people to move away from the coast but local municipalities don't want to lose their taxpayers. I suppose the most extreme scenario would be if in 40 years from now Federal authorities recommended that all businesses in lower Manhattan relocate far inland because of lower Manhattan being doomed by sea level rise and increased levels of extreme storms. The city of New York would not be happy with losing every business in lower Manhattan. The same would be true in other major international cities such as Shanghai, Jakarta and London if businesses in downtown areas all had to leave. Cities could go bankrupt.
@geofflepper3207 Very interesting. I never thought of that. It makes complete human sense. But in the end, something will have to give. Or maybe not. Venice is sinking and yet no-one is deserting the city. But maybe that's possible because of the stone foundations. I would assume modern buildings would lose their foundations to rot and rust if submerged.
I live in a heavily forested area of Northern California, over the last few years I've been surrounded by fires. My planned house is concrete and buried under 2-3 feet of soil.
It's far easier, cheaper, more beneficial to avoid the disasters in the first place. Dramatically reduce ALL pollution, drastically reverse ecocide and restore/protect/expand native ecosystems and species. Aim for 70% of nature's restoration/protection. Putting the biosphere/nature first is the way to foreswear all these disasters. It will create countless jobs, and benefit not only today's world, but deep into the future. #naturefirstparadigm
Same solution with the immigration crisis! Change the NAFTA rules that impoverished previously self-sustaining farmers and small business owners, and stop the WAR on drugs since it only empowers the federal agencies and the drug cartels. In parallel, instead of the 'war on terror,' if a fraction of the trillions spent on the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan had instead been used to BETTER the lives of the persons in these regions, there would be no war... but of course, THAT would be problematic for that same Military Industrial Complex (with war, its very profitable business) that Eisenhower warned about!
You want sweet desirable ocean front property than YOU PAY THE RIDICULOUS PREMIUMS!!! Same thing with building in the LA hills or in forests … why should the government funded by the public subsidize ocean front private residents ??? It’s a scam …
Yeah, so the artificial elevation of home costs, that corporations are responsible for, is part of this problem. It isn't just government. It is corporate interests. And those corporations should be forced to pay.
It would help federal insurance and subsidies immensely if billionaires and corporations started paying their fair share of taxes. Plus, many of these corporations (oil) are responsible for the increase of natural disasters.
Now the US economic system can seen the downfall of neglecting their climate change policies, please get the private sector behind this and it wil be surmountable. If only all these refugees world wide had a safe environment to return to they would happily work to reverse this impending catastrophe. The longer we prolong dealing with this as a global effort the most costly and harder it will be to reverse. If they could trap water and move to semi-industrial farming instead of subsistence farming they could grow forests for the developed world (thus trapping carbon permanently) all at a fraction of the cost that we can do it in the first world. These storms are only going to get worse, and if the reefs go then the protection they offer will multiply the impact. Please wealthy, privare companies get behind this before it is too expensive and hard to manage.
Before anyone comments I need to add this is one of the few ways where we can do this cheaply without lawsuits for those responsible for the emmissions. More importantly this policy would stimulate the worlds economy as opposed to stagnation, please invest in your future businesses and the world. Look at the risk, loss of everything, even if it costs half of the ultra wealthies reserves it is worth it, and realistically how would your lives change having only five hundred million dollars compared to a billion.
Oh, and china is in the same boat with regards to this issue, we all are. China a few years ago cut all it's climate, environment modification programs, well the ones that would work cheaply and effectively when the brief drought looked like the three gorges dam was going to be empty. It is time to recommit to these future proofing projects world wide.
Not to mention that insurance companies promised to insure everything including your mail box gladly accepting your money. Basically over extending themselves on coverage. Blame climate, but poor management by insurers is the real issue.
In 1859, the Oil Industry had a Big 100th Birthday Party for the First Modern Oil Well, drilled in Pennsylvania. The Oil CEOs invited Nuclear Scientist Edward Teller (the Father of the American H-Bomb) to speak at the Party, but I don't think they knew what he would be speaking about! Dr. Teller told them to get another Fuel, since burning Oil and Gas was warming up the Planet too much! And the Oil Industry SAT on the info for over 50 years!
The problem is that we're all responsible. What do you suppose is the carbon footprint of the phone in your hands, all the computers that run the internet and all of the electrical infrastructure without which the aforementioned are pretty much useless. If you're living in a first world country, you're part of the problem. You, me, everyone.
...and maybe we shouldn't buy their products. Nobody takes responsibility for their own actions. Always blaming the next guy. The vote that really counts is your dollars. If we don't buy their crap, they won't exist.
@@theobserver9131 True, however you get to choose to buy that house by the water or not, you get to choose how you heat and cool it it….heat pump or oil etc. I chose to buy a smaller but adequate, well built house on a hill away from the water, add additional insulation and get a heat pump etc. We drive a smaller, fuel efficient car and do what we can! We do not fly all over the earth for vacations but stay local! That does not eliminate our carbon footprint but it does significantly reduce it! All these are choices and many of us can do the same!
Insurance industry will be JUST FINE given all the TRILLIONS they collect and never have to give back, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, from 95%+ of their customers.
Did you not listen to the report? The largest insurers are pulling out of the largest US markets. They are foregoing the potential revenue because they've assessed that they cannot cover the losses. For example, State Farm will no longer write new home policies in California.
So please tell me WHY Insurance Companies like State Farm and Farmer's Insurance are leaving (or LEFT) States like Florida, since the number of Hurricanes was getting to be too much? Please tell me WHY Insurance Companies leave MILLIONS of dollars or MORE in Premiums on the table, rather than run the Risk of claims?
@@rdelrosso1973Is it possible that in some places they are pulling out because they can cover the loss but will have to cut back on shareholder profits ?
Hurricanes that glance along the coast, moving up along the coastline for many counties would be the worst. Not necessarily large storms with strong winds, but a storm that is slow moving and brings a large amount of rain with the excessive winds. So in insurance the problem is defining who pays. In a storm event, was the damage wind or flood or both? If you have a basic homeowner's policy, flood is not a covered peril. Even if you purchase the separate flood insurance, the problem is after the storm losses are real, getting the two coverages to actually pay because both will deny the claim as caused by the other risk event. The standard Property and Casualty will deny because the company will say the damage was caused by flood waters, while the flood insurance will not pay because that company says that the damages was caused by wind. So, a homeowner has to fight with the two companies to get relief even though the owner has paid both premiums.
I’m in FL (for work not by choice) and have private insurance with a strong company and already have to pay sizable surcharges to pay for the claims on insurers that went out of business because they didn’t charge high enough premiums.
Homes built in higher-risk areas, such as in mountain resorts communities, hillsides with views, coastal areas etc are often high-end properties owned by wealthier people. These are people that can contribute money, time and expertise to political campaigns and so of course they will make sure that taxes are used to subsidize their life-styles.
Rich people on the coasts lobby governments to subsidize the insurance markets. Especially flood ins in the past and general homeowners now. I am an agent in Tennessee and recently helped people with a home in sanibel florida after a hurricane. Such a different insurance market. The hourly wage earner will eventually subsidize the rich
At the 4:45 mark, Hari says "in a perfect market, there SHOULD be a Policy available in a high risk area, it will just cost a lot of money." Many of us know about the Wildfires in California and how they have grown bigger in recent years, in both size and frequency. But what about Fire Insurance Premiums? Back in 2018, a California resident told me that for the year of 2017, the Fire Insurance on her 5 Bedroom, 7 bathroom Home was $16,000 that year and in 2018 it had increased by 100% to $32,000. By early 2021, the Fire Insurance had gone to an annual rate of $45,000 per year. So I don't understand what the Bloomberg person said about California "regulating" Fire Insurance Premiums. I have NO idea what the above Fire Insurance is NOW! (Probably somewhat NORTH of $45,000 !) And remember, that is____ONLY____ for Fire Insurance! That does not include Property Tax or other expenses. Obviously, some people can pay higher Insurance Costs and some people cannot. ################## On another RUclips Video, a Florida resident said that he is SO RICH, that he does NOT need any Home Insurance! (It's called "Going Naked"!). He said "if a Hurricane destroys his home he is SO rich, he can afford to pay for a new home out of his OWN Net Worth!" Well, goody for HIM! But, if he goes to sell his home and the Buyer asks him "So, what do you pay for Insurance?" and the Home Owner cannot give him a number and says he has NO insurance, the BUYER may want to get his or her OWN insurance! And if the Buyer CANNOT get insurance or the insurance is too expensive, the Buyer may NOT want to pay the $1 million or $3 million or whatever your Asking Price is! I could see that the "Fair Market Value" of many homes may go DOWN, due to this Insurance Crisis!
I am sorry, but Florida's insurance mess has been an issue for more than 10 years. My insurance has gone up 8 years conservative and my area wasn't affected by a hurricane. Where is that money going? To pay another person's home that was damaged.
Yes, that is the fundamental nature/principle of insurance. The risk is spread over many different people - if you've ever made a claim, someone else has effectively helped to pay for yours. As for Florida, this is hardly the first reporting on this subject. The industry and regulators have been reporting on it for quite a while, and trying to encourage homeowners to build more resiliently.
I was told a few weeks ago by my landlord insurance company is not renewing my policy in Oakland, California. It was a big challenging to find two years ago. I can say this is real.
Everyone wants to pay as little as possible for insurance, while receiving as much as possible when they have a claim. I don't think people understand how it's supposed to work. Let's say I live in a million dollar apartment on the beach in South Florida for which the yearly insurance premium is $15k. I would have to pay for over 60 years to begin to approach a $1M value. Insurance is a bargain. Even if the premium doubled to $30k per year, it's would take over 30 years of premiums for the insurance company to break even on insuring my home in the event of a total loss. The problem is we have a lot of entitled people - mostly older - who think they should get everything while paying nothing. So go live in Kansas or wherever. You can live in my state if you can afford to live here, if you can't, there are 49 other states to choose from, and a couple of territories beyond that. I for one am glad that the era of Florida as a retiree state is coming to an end.
I was expecting the interview to touch on the rise of home insurance rates across the entire country as nationwide insurance companies try to compensate for disasters in states like CA, FL, OK, CO, etc.
Insurance companies have been sucking me dry for decades. When you file a claim, they raise ur premiums. Now, they don't even want to insure folks. Where are our rights in all of this?
But the nation's fleets of giant SUVS and gas-guzzling trucks are a major factor in the climate chaos that's brought more deadly storms to Florida (and fires to California, etc.)
@siouxrose7766 it's not just this nation. It's a humanity problem. China is the number 1 polluter now, Russias war machine. Etc etc etc. But florida is a special kinda of rotten right now
I've been wondering how insurance companies have kept some of these places as long as they did but besides raising every ones rates like they have . Insurance companies have a set profit they expect. But the big storm is coming this year massive hurricane that stalls over land . We will have lots this year but I think the killed by a 1000 cuts will fit we are getting slammed by tornados and its just the first day of spring. Floods and wildfires are everywhere this years going to be a eye opener.
The big component that seems to be missing from government insurance programs is reinsurance. Since their pricing doesn't cover the cost of reinsurance, the policies they offer are cheaper because they haven't actually priced in all the risk. Essentially the assessments put all of the citizens in the political unit on the hook for losses that reinsurance should have been bought for.
Replacement costs are through the roof due to inflation of material, labor, and financing costs. When regulators cap rate increases below the implied risk, insurers exit those markets in droves. Remaining insurers as always, will delay, deny, and defend against claims. The answer may be to relocate out of hazard zones while possible.
My home insurance went up two hundred dollars, without a insurance claim nor have ever been a filed claim. It's because of all the other claims they had to pay out. because of the increase we search to find a insurance policy with another company, they stated the state had put a mandate ( hold) on the providing new home insurance policy.
Why aren't risk prone states promoting low cost homes, like mobile homes and tiny house, wheeled or on foundations? These would cost less to insure and would be replaced in a few decades.
Insurance prices are unaffordable anymore. If my house burns down I'll just put a yurt on my rural property. I wish there were a solution for the high cost of auto insurance. There's no way around Auto insurance. It's become like the health insurance which is expensive and it covers nothing.
This is a very informative interview. I almost took it at face value. The facts as they are presented are very helpful. Unfortunately, at the end of the show, the fact that someone who focuses on money, only, will probably not have a better view of how things are being dealt. This is especially true when she is trying to steer the conversation in the direction of how she sees the only realistic solutions. Sorry Bloomberg.
Deniers will deny.. but the cold hard numbers, and an insurance company failure or two, might help clarify the issue, and take the culture warriors outta the discussion.. finally
Other factors aside (build, location, climate, etc), this makes sense. I went through college in the 1980's as underage drinking was gaining visibility as a problem. My first year there were two incidents of alcohol poisoning/hazing at fraternity houses that resulted in deaths and the insurance companies came in and told the Greek system that they were going to pull out of that market unless serious changes were made. They went further and involved the University and ITS housing, too. Anywhere that you have a bunch of kids with easy access to alcohol, the insurance companies played Mom and Dad and said that they were not putting up with it. As an underage party kid, I thought this was terrible but with some hindsight I can understand The System better. Insurance played a role in suppressing underground all-ages punk clubs, too -- rickety-ass single stairway exits just don't fly. I loved the club I'm thinking of but it was a death trap. Ditto EDM clubs more recently. I think there are ways to make things structurally SAFE for kids and keep overhead costs down so that people can be experimental and not be driven out of business...but I also look around and understand that "worst case scenario" can kill a lot of people needlessly. Housing seems like the kind of thing we can regulate (hello Big Government!) in a sensible manner whether that's build quality, location decisions and other zoning decisions. In the long run, it doesn't make sense to build out beachfront along the Hurricane Coast AND insure them unless they are built to survive a Class 6 hurricane (yes, I know that's not real but it might be a real category in the future as these things strengthen).
Improve building codes and zoning laws. It is likely that Insurance for individuals and families not living in Single Family Homes will remain affordable if there is enough of them; e.g. flooding will be at ground level, and you can consolidate a bit or even a lot from flood planes. Infrastructure will also remain cheaper to replace per person. This is what my metro, Auckland, is doing right now with the 2016 Unitary Plan, and I think it was a very wise move to implement it. More greenfield developments (tho, higher density Transit-Oriented ones from Germany are alright I guess?) means more pipes, roads, wires to replace in an emergency. It would also be easier to protect like how the Dutch do.
Which is why I am GLAD to be living on the THIRD floor of a 75-unit Building in NJ, USA. We are three blocks from a River, but I doubt the water would get that high. Of course, if the area WERE seriously Flooded, then how would I get to the Store or Doctor? That's a good question. I wish I had the answer. Buy a row boat?
@@rdelrosso1973 Inflatable kayak from the closet? Should be compact enough to store lol. Interesting fact: the people who live along the newish waterfront apartments in Copenhagen have direct access to the water, and you can find boats of all kinds. It's a cool place to live from what I've seen. Same in the Netherlands. And inflatable kayaks can fit on a bicycle. Might also be worth having at least a folding bicycle in the closet in case the emergency is something different than flooding.
@@rdelrosso1973 Found these on reddit: "They’re pretty safe if they have multiple chambers. I had an Intex Excursion Pro that held up well to the rocky, barnacle-covered shores up here in the Salish Sea for two years before I switched to a solid body and gave it to some friends." and "I have one of the Drop-Stitch inflatable kayaks and I feel very secure in them out on the water. It have three air chambers and you must be very unlucky if all three puncture at the same time. The fabric is also very durable. If you wear a life jacket, there is no problem paddling safely in them. I really love paddling with it. The one I got is the Aqua Marina Tomahawk Air-K 375."
Science, market economy, actuarial and financial planning, and minimal government oversight of oligopolies and monopolies are key to a healthy economy. We need a leadership to think far enough into the future to make this balance work. This is critical for any non-discretionary industry.
As for CA they are the only state that uses past climate models vs predictive modeling; and still has yet to change the building codes so that new fire proof materials for building are factored into the decrease Ins costs from the fire loss risk decreasing. The CA fair plan is ridiculous, and they should never have let PG&E off the hook from paying their fines for the destructive broken lines they never fixed in 80 yrs that caused the biggest CA fires.
As it stands today, you practically need to hire a lawyer to get an insurance company to fulfill their end of the contract. We are being consumed by corporations, meanwhile our idiot, governor and his supporters are more interested in sending soldiers to the Florida Keys to stop Haitians, who are destitute, and have no means of travel from coming here instead of dealing with this horrendous insurance crisis. In a very short time, none of us will be driving or owning a home and I’m sure we will elect someone to find a suitable group to blame for our problems
Fundamentally, are key aspects of life insurable through the private sector for the vast majority of older and poorer Americans? The arguments for a Citizens Insurance State government sponsored plan, or a Medicare for All Federal government health insurance program are not philosophical. It's economical. For years the price of homes, cars and healthcare and (college education) has risen faster than average wages have. So, how can a capitalist society survive when the cost of basic needs becomes too expensive for the vast majority of people? I am not advocating for Socialism, but has Capitalism worked in America? Or has it simply caused a massive wealth shift and concentration away from the now massive number of working poor and poor retirees to the large companies and the small number of elite families that are the principle shareholders in those companies? Is America slowly by steadily heading toward the economics of Victorian England? Are we becoming a two class society with 85% of the population living near or below the poverty line? And I don't use the Federal limits for poverty. That is not poverty. I use the basic number of an income of $40K per year for a Single Person as being the threshold for being working poor or entering lower middle class.
Governments should get out of the insurance business, but they SHOULD enforce transparency on the private insurers. If you build in a forest in California, why should taxpayers subsidize your lifestyle? Private insurance (properly priced based on risk) is part of the cost of your lifestyle. Over time, this will reduce building in idiotic locations, reducing the overall economic impact of disasters.
7:53 pro tip: check your policy coverage for the phrase “replacement value” or “estimated value” - they are waaaaay different things! Also, since cars cost $50k to $500M or more now, what’s replacement value on all those multi-car households. Cost of rental cars. Hotels for insured people and hotels for homeless people. Be lucky if you can keep leasing a car or buy the cheap old used kind. 🎲
Not sure why banks continue to lend in disaster-prone areas. Is it because they pass on the loans to government-based agencies or unsuspecting investors?
She didn't even touch upon the impacts this has on commercial real estate. The costs are so enormous here in Florida people are turning to private money lenders (the seller) to finance uninsured or vastly under-insured commercial property. This will radically increase the cost of doing business through higher rents and lower valuations of properties, leading to economic distress - or worse.
Great video..Now with the increasing costs of insurance and some companies pulling out of risky places like Calif,and Florida..There can't be anymore denial about climate not changing..She said it right here several times in the 80s and 90s we would have a billion dollars disaster every 4 months or so..in the past 15 years that increased from 4 or 5 per year up to 15 per year and now the past 5 years 20 or more billion dollar disasters every year..The insurance industry will collapse they are in the business to make money not go bankrupt..NOAA puts out a widely available chart on billion dollar disasters every year..Everyone needs to look at it and determine what their risks are where they live.. its the smart thing to do.
@@TobinMiller-wt6yfOne might argue that the last "stable" decade was the 1960s, if one is defining "stable" as being most similar to the hundreds of years prior (< 50 yearly natural disasters worldwide). Since the 70s, the count of natural disasters began to increase. In the '80 the planet averaged @ 100 yearly natural disasters worldwide. 250 in the 90s. And after the century turned, we blew up to nearly 400 and have been hovering between 350-400 natural disasters worldwide since. Stable is not something many people on this planet have ever experienced.
The insurance industry is going to make a profit no matter what. Not one penny of any tax dollars should go to subsidize them. Especially in the red states who are against any form of social safety net.
Climate is always changing with or without humans. The solution is simple, don't live in flood and wildfire zones. In reality all the waterfront land should be public parks, not owned by individuals. If individuals want to live right on the ocean then they should pay for it. . Not the government!
What kind of pension fund obligations do Home Insurance companies carry for their career professionals? I have frequently wondered how the retirement payout of an insurance agent or broker is structured. Is it possible the actuarial projections for long term pension fund obligations were built during the years before climate change became a real phenomenon? Interior home inspections are on the verge of reality, just as exterior home inspections have been around for a while. Insurance companies are beginning to act as though they own your home and can tell you what to do with your property. Unfortunately, the song about "little boxes, little boxes" has become a sticky "ticky tacky" truth.
Along with the most obvious situation is the guy with the idea that he has the best answer claiming that it will only be a few days before...? Quit drinking OIL
"There is no legitimate discussion to be had about climate anything from any perspective without first addressing the climate engineering intervention operations."- Dane Wigington.
There needs to be a lot of new housing built all over this country and the government is going to have to assist in some way, or we’re destined to be a society of paupers.
These poor insurance companies. How are they going to pay their CEO's their average yearly 15-30 million in compensation. Yet alone the poor rest of the boatd members, etc.
As a retired carpenter, one of the problems is how we build our homes. Our homes are not designed to be resilient, and they're not designed to withstand all that nature has to give. They are designed to sell products. They are designed around the industry, not around the home owner.
We could build much better homes if we wanted to. They wouldn't have to cost much more, they would just have to be designed properly, using proper materials. This whole square box, stick frame, wood covered, tar based roof building concept is stupid. It's mostly 18th century design.
Spot on!
I used to build in Northern California and remember all the times the state tried to regulate wood siding and shingles in fire prone areas and how the industry lobbied to prevent it. The last place I lived in up in gold country had a 300' fire perimeter of closely cut grass, no veg near the structure...
I've noticed that too. The profiteering is destroying billions of dollars as waste.
Very accurately stated.
I designed my home. Its roof can take 140 mph winds its walls are all ICF home heats and cools 70% without any moving parts just passively, its so fire resistant my insurer gave me all discounts. I'm in Wisconsin but I over engineered the roof designed to not lift with wind and is all hurricane strapped.
Yet Florida keeps building in coastal areas making the problem much bigger in the future.
Things will change when they have to pay for their own repairs out of pocket.
They might be building, but in the past couple of years it has become pretty hard to insure coastal homes in Florida. Even the "last resort" insurer is wildly expensive
And North Carolina's barrier reef.
Have seen ads for "Valencia" in FL. Prices range from $400k to $2m. I should be so lucky! Will continue to live in "fly over country," or consider Patagonia.
In Nova Scotia, where I live, the provincial Conservative government was too afraid of wealthy developers, and backed away from a coastal protection plan, just last month. I’ll bet my paycheque that when the inevitable happens, the broader populace will bail out wealthy developers..
I’m not saying that this is the ultimate answer, but if the federal government is going to ensure the public against all of these climate change disasters, it’s going to need tax dollars in order to be able to pay out, and wouldn’t paying out be just that much more easily done if huge corporations and the super rich actually paid their fair share of the tax burden so that there was money in the pot to pay out. It’s always assumed that when it comes to the federal government. The burden is gonna fall on the little guy, you know the hard-working underappreciated men and women who get up every day and go to work to pay the bills and put food on the table. It never seems to be part of the equation that Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Amazon, Tesla, Walmart, etc. should actually be paying their fair share of the taxes that are required to keep the country up and running so that people can actually get to work do their jobs make the products provide the services that generate the money that they need to put food on their table and keep the rich rich. I think Joe Biden knows exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it when he says that he wants to reinstitute a minimum 15% tax on the wealthy corporations and individuals in America. And I think that’s fair.
I agree 100%!! If we truly had tax justice in this country based on the strength and broadness of our shoulders, many issues (like insurance) would be much more manageable. As it is now, the wealthy are perniciously misallocated carbon footprints engaging in pecuniary gluttony.
Well, that sounds good.
However, if all we do is pay for the EFFECTS of Climate Change (and its subset, Global Warming), that can be self-defeating, in the Long Run.
We have to implement Policies that deal with the root CAUSES of Climate Change (by burning less Fossil Fuel and putting LESS CO2 in the air).
However, since a large part of the American Electorate does not "believe" that CO2 warms the Earth and does not "believe" that Climate Change is REAL, then it will be an uphill battle that could be LOST.
Rebates for projects that alleviate the problem is better than taxes, we need the economy of the world to ramp up for this change, not down, and targeted relief for those doing things that are multi tiered and linked is a good way to stimulate the change.
Do you think the Trumpers agree?
MAGA are a people who are misinformed and emotionally traumatised into irrational beliefs (seriously UFO hearings, lizard people and jewish space lasers). If they had the information and the knowledge of the means to deal with these problems then they would be less dramatic about everything. Perspective and proportion are what makes those different to us so much more appealing and less scary. There is no left in the world, particularly the US and moderates are what will keep us all in the "middle of the road". No ones freedom has to come at the expense of some else especially when it is so importatn that we all work together.@@herbertrodriguez9236
Well, of course. Insurance companies are structured to protect themselves against losses, not to protect everyone else. This can't possibly be a surprise to anyone.
A great book about the disaster that lies ahead because of climate change is called "the great displacement". Basically there's going to be a huge internal migration in the U.S. because homes are simply going to be uninsurable if they are below the mason dixon line or on either coast.
TBPH, I wouldn't be surprised if lots of places get upzoned, and higher density buildings start showing up along the coasts. Would probably be more insurable.
The Midwest is in for a surprise if it thinks it is safe from increasing natural catastrophes. And naturally an increase in population will bring about similar results in the insurance market.
The Mason-Dixon line does not extend to the west coast.
Trump needs to build the border wall!
On the Mason Dixon line and lock him on the S side😂
@@Skunk106 it is evident you have no compassion
Our government used to assist us in a big way during a natural disaster... until Katrina. A proper government would shrink its military, stop the wars and attend to its people's needs.
Leftists are okay with that. Nobody is a communist and therefore we don't want assistance from no government. Poverty forever.
The cia has made so many enemies with their engineering regime changes that I’m not sure it’s safe to shrink the military by much.
There is no mention in this video of the obvious solution (in the wealthier countries anyway and for now). If your house flooded or burned down, take that as an opportunity to move somewhere where that is not likely to happen again. By making it possible to live in places nature has reclaimed, we create an expensive situation. If rich people want to use their own money to live in a place where they will have to rebuild their home twice in a decade, fine. I am sure they have the servants to help with the cleanup, designers to shop for new furnishings, personal stylists for a new wardrobe, and of course have no shortage of cash to rebuild a bigger and better home. That's their perogative. For the rest of us, that's not a workable lifestyle.
I read that in the New York area after Hurricane Sandy federal authorities wanted residents whose homes had been destroyed to move inland and rebuild in a safer place and to leave destroyed areas as parks and naturalized areas because FEMA knows that their is a significant risk that the same neighborhoods could be destroyed again by a future storm or by sea level rise but local governments wanted residents to rebuild just where the destroyed homes were because parks and naturalized areas don't pay municipal taxes - home owners do.
I imagine that the same is true in every coastal municipality.
Federal authorities know that the sensible thing is for people to move away from the coast but local municipalities don't want to lose their taxpayers.
I suppose the most extreme scenario would be if in
40 years from now Federal authorities recommended that all businesses in lower Manhattan relocate far inland because of lower Manhattan being doomed by sea level rise and increased levels of extreme storms.
The city of New York would not be happy with losing every business in lower Manhattan.
The same would be true in other major international cities such as Shanghai, Jakarta and London if businesses in downtown areas all had to leave.
Cities could go bankrupt.
@geofflepper3207 Very interesting. I never thought of that. It makes complete human sense. But in the end, something will have to give. Or maybe not. Venice is sinking and yet no-one is deserting the city. But maybe that's possible because of the stone foundations. I would assume modern buildings would lose their foundations to rot and rust if submerged.
I live in a heavily forested area of Northern California, over the last few years I've been surrounded by fires. My planned house is concrete and buried under 2-3 feet of soil.
So, you'll bake?
@@jeanneelliott7243 Ha ha, I'm way ahead o' ya, I'm gonna have a still, so I'll baste.
@@jeanneelliott7243 Ha ha, I'm way ahead o' you, I'm gonna have a still, so I'll baste.
If I had a house in Florida, I’d be selling it ASAP. It will soon be worthless.
Thank you for this discussion and for all of your standard setting journalism.
Top notch interview and reporting! Kudos to you both!
This is a huge issue.
It's far easier, cheaper, more beneficial to avoid the disasters in the first place. Dramatically reduce ALL pollution, drastically reverse ecocide and restore/protect/expand native ecosystems and species. Aim for 70% of nature's restoration/protection. Putting the biosphere/nature first is the way to foreswear all these disasters. It will create countless jobs, and benefit not only today's world, but deep into the future. #naturefirstparadigm
Ain't gonna happen...
Same solution with the immigration crisis! Change the NAFTA rules that impoverished previously self-sustaining farmers and small business owners, and stop the WAR on drugs since it only empowers the federal agencies and the drug cartels.
In parallel, instead of the 'war on terror,' if a fraction of the trillions spent on the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan had instead been used to BETTER the lives of the persons in these regions, there would be no war... but of course, THAT would be problematic for that same Military Industrial Complex (with war, its very profitable business) that Eisenhower warned about!
I’ve never been able to get a mortgage without homeowner’s insurance.
You want sweet desirable ocean front property than YOU PAY THE RIDICULOUS PREMIUMS!!! Same thing with building in the LA hills or in forests … why should the government funded by the public subsidize ocean front private residents ??? It’s a scam …
excellent and frightening.
Yeah, so the artificial elevation of home costs, that corporations are responsible for, is part of this problem. It isn't just government. It is corporate interests. And those corporations should be forced to pay.
It would help federal insurance and subsidies immensely if billionaires and corporations started paying their fair share of taxes. Plus, many of these corporations (oil) are responsible for the increase of natural disasters.
The problem was ignored for decades. Peeps thought climate change wasn’t gonna impact ‘em.
So, if you’ve been an adult for a long time, enjoy.
Now the US economic system can seen the downfall of neglecting their climate change policies, please get the private sector behind this and it wil be surmountable. If only all these refugees world wide had a safe environment to return to they would happily work to reverse this impending catastrophe. The longer we prolong dealing with this as a global effort the most costly and harder it will be to reverse. If they could trap water and move to semi-industrial farming instead of subsistence farming they could grow forests for the developed world (thus trapping carbon permanently) all at a fraction of the cost that we can do it in the first world. These storms are only going to get worse, and if the reefs go then the protection they offer will multiply the impact. Please wealthy, privare companies get behind this before it is too expensive and hard to manage.
Before anyone comments I need to add this is one of the few ways where we can do this cheaply without lawsuits for those responsible for the emmissions. More importantly this policy would stimulate the worlds economy as opposed to stagnation, please invest in your future businesses and the world. Look at the risk, loss of everything, even if it costs half of the ultra wealthies reserves it is worth it, and realistically how would your lives change having only five hundred million dollars compared to a billion.
Oh, and china is in the same boat with regards to this issue, we all are. China a few years ago cut all it's climate, environment modification programs, well the ones that would work cheaply and effectively when the brief drought looked like the three gorges dam was going to be empty. It is time to recommit to these future proofing projects world wide.
Not to mention that insurance companies promised to insure everything including your mail box gladly accepting your money. Basically over extending themselves on coverage. Blame climate, but poor management by insurers is the real issue.
If the cause of more disasters is climate change, then those corporations responsible should doot the bill.
In 1859, the Oil Industry had a Big 100th Birthday Party for the First Modern Oil Well, drilled in Pennsylvania.
The Oil CEOs invited Nuclear Scientist Edward Teller (the Father of the American H-Bomb) to speak at the Party, but I don't think they knew what he would be speaking about!
Dr. Teller told them to get another Fuel, since burning Oil and Gas was warming up the Planet too much!
And the Oil Industry SAT on the info for over 50 years!
The problem is that we're all responsible. What do you suppose is the carbon footprint of the phone in your hands, all the computers that run the internet and all of the electrical infrastructure without which the aforementioned are pretty much useless. If you're living in a first world country, you're part of the problem. You, me, everyone.
...and maybe we shouldn't buy their products. Nobody takes responsibility for their own actions. Always blaming the next guy. The vote that really counts is your dollars. If we don't buy their crap, they won't exist.
Do you use energy? Yes you do. It's all of us. Not just somebody else.
@@theobserver9131 True, however you get to choose to buy that house by the water or not, you get to choose how you heat and cool it it….heat pump or oil etc. I chose to buy a smaller but adequate, well built house on a hill away from the water, add additional insulation and get a heat pump etc. We drive a smaller, fuel efficient car and do what we can! We do not fly all over the earth for vacations but stay local! That does not eliminate our carbon footprint but it does significantly reduce it! All these are choices and many of us can do the same!
Insurance industry will be JUST FINE given all the TRILLIONS they collect and never have to give back, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, from 95%+ of their customers.
Did you not listen to the report? The largest insurers are pulling out of the largest US markets. They are foregoing the potential revenue because they've assessed that they cannot cover the losses. For example, State Farm will no longer write new home policies in California.
So please tell me WHY Insurance Companies like State Farm and Farmer's Insurance are leaving (or LEFT) States like Florida, since the number of Hurricanes was getting to be too much?
Please tell me WHY Insurance Companies leave MILLIONS of dollars or MORE in Premiums on the table, rather than run the Risk of claims?
@@rdelrosso1973Is it possible that in some places they are pulling out because they can cover the loss but will have to cut back on shareholder profits ?
@@craven5328They pulled out of Florida as well as 15 other insurers.
People's laze faire on earth is over, or should be. Earth is a fully conscious, living things, giving and giving . . .
Brilliant comprehensive interview and reporting
What isn’t being looked at is where people are building. Risk declines if you don’t build in high risk areas….
Hurricanes that glance along the coast, moving up along the coastline for many counties would be the worst. Not necessarily large storms with strong winds, but a storm that is slow moving and brings a large amount of rain with the excessive winds.
So in insurance the problem is defining who pays. In a storm event, was the damage wind or flood or both? If you have a basic homeowner's policy, flood is not a covered peril. Even if you purchase the separate flood insurance, the problem is after the storm losses are real, getting the two coverages to actually pay because both will deny the claim as caused by the other risk event. The standard Property and Casualty will deny because the company will say the damage was caused by flood waters, while the flood insurance will not pay because that company says that the damages was caused by wind.
So, a homeowner has to fight with the two companies to get relief even though the owner has paid both premiums.
G, I wonder if I owned a golf resort in Florida would it be best for me to massively overvalue or massively undervalued my property?
Thank you
Wow, natural disasters going from 3 times a year to 18 since the '80s... Too bad the free market hasn't fixed it yet!
I’m in FL (for work not by choice) and have private insurance with a strong company and already have to pay sizable surcharges to pay for the claims on insurers that went out of business because they didn’t charge high enough premiums.
I attended our Lady queen of angels seminary at 12yrs old 90,000 per semester
Homeowners insurance has always been a cash cow. Homeowners would go decades with no claims yet pay in each month. Where are the reserves??
Homes built in higher-risk areas, such as in mountain resorts communities, hillsides with views, coastal areas etc are often high-end properties owned by wealthier people. These are people that can contribute money, time and expertise to political campaigns and so of course they will make sure that taxes are used to subsidize their life-styles.
Rich people on the coasts lobby governments to subsidize the insurance markets. Especially flood ins in the past and general homeowners now. I am an agent in Tennessee and recently helped people with a home in sanibel florida after a hurricane. Such a different insurance market. The hourly wage earner will eventually subsidize the rich
At the 4:45 mark, Hari says "in a perfect market, there SHOULD be a Policy available in a high risk area, it will just cost a lot of money."
Many of us know about the Wildfires in California and how they have grown bigger in recent years, in both size and frequency.
But what about Fire Insurance Premiums?
Back in 2018, a California resident told me that for the year of 2017, the Fire Insurance on her 5 Bedroom, 7 bathroom Home was $16,000 that year and in 2018 it had increased by 100% to $32,000.
By early 2021, the Fire Insurance had gone to an annual rate of $45,000 per year.
So I don't understand what the Bloomberg person said about California "regulating" Fire Insurance Premiums.
I have NO idea what the above Fire Insurance is NOW! (Probably somewhat NORTH of $45,000 !)
And remember, that is____ONLY____ for Fire Insurance! That does not include Property Tax or other expenses.
Obviously, some people can pay higher Insurance Costs and some people cannot.
##################
On another RUclips Video, a Florida resident said that he is SO RICH, that he does NOT need any Home Insurance! (It's called "Going Naked"!). He said "if a Hurricane destroys his home he is SO rich, he can afford to pay for a new home out of his OWN Net Worth!"
Well, goody for HIM!
But, if he goes to sell his home and the Buyer asks him "So, what do you pay for Insurance?" and the Home Owner cannot give him a number and says he has NO insurance, the BUYER may want to get his or her OWN insurance!
And if the Buyer CANNOT get insurance or the insurance is too expensive, the Buyer may NOT want to pay the $1 million or $3 million or whatever your Asking Price is!
I could see that the "Fair Market Value" of many homes may go DOWN, due to this Insurance Crisis!
I am sorry, but Florida's insurance mess has been an issue for more than 10 years. My insurance has gone up 8 years conservative and my area wasn't affected by a hurricane. Where is that money going? To pay another person's home that was damaged.
Yes, that is the fundamental nature/principle of insurance. The risk is spread over many different people - if you've ever made a claim, someone else has effectively helped to pay for yours.
As for Florida, this is hardly the first reporting on this subject. The industry and regulators have been reporting on it for quite a while, and trying to encourage homeowners to build more resiliently.
materials and location is key to avoid disaster.
a stone house in the forest is not a disastrous idea if drought is common.
I was told a few weeks ago by my landlord insurance company is not renewing my policy in Oakland, California. It was a big challenging to find two years ago. I can say this is real.
Everyone wants to pay as little as possible for insurance, while receiving as much as possible when they have a claim. I don't think people understand how it's supposed to work. Let's say I live in a million dollar apartment on the beach in South Florida for which the yearly insurance premium is $15k. I would have to pay for over 60 years to begin to approach a $1M value. Insurance is a bargain. Even if the premium doubled to $30k per year, it's would take over 30 years of premiums for the insurance company to break even on insuring my home in the event of a total loss. The problem is we have a lot of entitled people - mostly older - who think they should get everything while paying nothing. So go live in Kansas or wherever. You can live in my state if you can afford to live here, if you can't, there are 49 other states to choose from, and a couple of territories beyond that. I for one am glad that the era of Florida as a retiree state is coming to an end.
I was expecting the interview to touch on the rise of home insurance rates across the entire country as nationwide insurance companies try to compensate for disasters in states like CA, FL, OK, CO, etc.
Insurance companies have been sucking me dry for decades. When you file a claim, they raise ur premiums. Now, they don't even want to insure folks. Where are our rights in all of this?
You could self insure if you don’t like it?
1. How much got paid out on your last claim?
2. Have you paid even that much back to them since then?
@Pintsizefury That's an option, but if you still have mortgage than traditional insurance is required.
Let s look at the hurricane Katrina
90% of claims come from Florida. Florida is the worst problem. Insurance companies are pulling out of the state entirely.
But the nation's fleets of giant SUVS and gas-guzzling trucks are a major factor in the climate chaos that's brought more deadly storms to Florida (and fires to California, etc.)
@siouxrose7766 it's not just this nation. It's a humanity problem. China is the number 1 polluter now, Russias war machine. Etc etc etc. But florida is a special kinda of rotten right now
Cali too
I've been wondering how insurance companies have kept some of these places as long as they did but besides raising every ones rates like they have . Insurance companies have a set profit they expect.
But the big storm is coming this year massive hurricane that stalls over land . We will have lots this year but I think the killed by a 1000 cuts will fit we are getting slammed by tornados and its just the first day of spring. Floods and wildfires are everywhere this years going to be a eye opener.
The big component that seems to be missing from government insurance programs is reinsurance. Since their pricing doesn't cover the cost of reinsurance, the policies they offer are cheaper because they haven't actually priced in all the risk. Essentially the assessments put all of the citizens in the political unit on the hook for losses that reinsurance should have been bought for.
Maybe if we took all the money we are sending to Israel, we would fund this no problem
Insurance is a cartel , and by all standards, is illegal
I wonder how republicans will react to U.S. internal migration. The 2030's be will a test for any administration.
Replacement costs are through the roof due to inflation of material, labor, and financing costs. When regulators cap rate increases below the implied risk, insurers exit those markets in droves. Remaining insurers as always, will delay, deny, and defend against claims. The answer may be to relocate out of hazard zones while possible.
There is a reason why ancient civilisations built their structures in the mountains and inland, in the middle of nowhere, away from the coast.
We were told well over fifty years ago that this would be happening.
My home insurance went up two hundred dollars, without a insurance claim nor have ever been a filed claim. It's because of all the other claims they had to pay out. because of the increase we search to find a insurance policy with another company, they stated the state had put a mandate ( hold) on the providing new home insurance policy.
Opening shots of flooding is from the town i live in...hope my insurance company missed that part
Earthquake
Albert Einstein during war with Japanese
Why aren't risk prone states promoting low cost homes, like mobile homes and tiny house, wheeled or on foundations? These would cost less to insure and would be replaced in a few decades.
Insurance prices are unaffordable anymore. If my house burns down I'll just put a yurt on my rural property. I wish there were a solution for the high cost of auto insurance. There's no way around Auto insurance. It's become like the health insurance which is expensive and it covers nothing.
This is a very informative interview. I almost took it at face value. The facts as they are presented are very helpful. Unfortunately, at the end of the show, the fact that someone who focuses on money, only, will probably not have a better view of how things are being dealt. This is especially true when she is trying to steer the conversation in the direction of how she sees the only realistic solutions. Sorry Bloomberg.
Deniers will deny.. but the cold hard numbers, and an insurance company failure or two, might help clarify the issue, and take the culture warriors outta the discussion.. finally
Other factors aside (build, location, climate, etc), this makes sense. I went through college in the 1980's as underage drinking was gaining visibility as a problem. My first year there were two incidents of alcohol poisoning/hazing at fraternity houses that resulted in deaths and the insurance companies came in and told the Greek system that they were going to pull out of that market unless serious changes were made. They went further and involved the University and ITS housing, too. Anywhere that you have a bunch of kids with easy access to alcohol, the insurance companies played Mom and Dad and said that they were not putting up with it. As an underage party kid, I thought this was terrible but with some hindsight I can understand The System better. Insurance played a role in suppressing underground all-ages punk clubs, too -- rickety-ass single stairway exits just don't fly. I loved the club I'm thinking of but it was a death trap. Ditto EDM clubs more recently. I think there are ways to make things structurally SAFE for kids and keep overhead costs down so that people can be experimental and not be driven out of business...but I also look around and understand that "worst case scenario" can kill a lot of people needlessly. Housing seems like the kind of thing we can regulate (hello Big Government!) in a sensible manner whether that's build quality, location decisions and other zoning decisions. In the long run, it doesn't make sense to build out beachfront along the Hurricane Coast AND insure them unless they are built to survive a Class 6 hurricane (yes, I know that's not real but it might be a real category in the future as these things strengthen).
And houses in the US are still made of soft wood and plastic.
Improve building codes and zoning laws. It is likely that Insurance for individuals and families not living in Single Family Homes will remain affordable if there is enough of them; e.g. flooding will be at ground level, and you can consolidate a bit or even a lot from flood planes.
Infrastructure will also remain cheaper to replace per person. This is what my metro, Auckland, is doing right now with the 2016 Unitary Plan, and I think it was a very wise move to implement it. More greenfield developments (tho, higher density Transit-Oriented ones from Germany are alright I guess?) means more pipes, roads, wires to replace in an emergency. It would also be easier to protect like how the Dutch do.
Which is why I am GLAD to be living on the THIRD floor of a 75-unit Building in NJ, USA.
We are three blocks from a River, but I doubt the water would get that high.
Of course, if the area WERE seriously Flooded, then how would I get to the Store or Doctor? That's a good question. I wish I had the answer. Buy a row boat?
@@rdelrosso1973 Inflatable kayak from the closet? Should be compact enough to store lol.
Interesting fact: the people who live along the newish waterfront apartments in Copenhagen have direct access to the water, and you can find boats of all kinds. It's a cool place to live from what I've seen. Same in the Netherlands.
And inflatable kayaks can fit on a bicycle. Might also be worth having at least a folding bicycle in the closet in case the emergency is something different than flooding.
@@C0deH0wler
Thank you for that suggestion!
Let's hope the inflatable kayak does not encounter any nails or sharp objects in the water!
@@rdelrosso1973 Found these on reddit: "They’re pretty safe if they have multiple chambers. I had an Intex Excursion Pro that held up well to the rocky, barnacle-covered shores up here in the Salish Sea for two years before I switched to a solid body and gave it to some friends."
and
"I have one of the Drop-Stitch inflatable kayaks and I feel very secure in them out on the water. It have three air chambers and you must be very unlucky if all three puncture at the same time. The fabric is also very durable. If you wear a life jacket, there is no problem paddling safely in them. I really love paddling with it. The one I got is the Aqua Marina Tomahawk Air-K 375."
V nice...😅😅😊
Science, market economy, actuarial and financial planning, and minimal government oversight of oligopolies and monopolies are key to a healthy economy. We need a leadership to think far enough into the future to make this balance work. This is critical for any non-discretionary industry.
Brains 🧠 storming million percent
As for CA they are the only state that uses past climate models vs predictive modeling; and still has yet to change the building codes so that new fire proof materials for building are factored into the decrease Ins costs from the fire loss risk decreasing. The CA fair plan is ridiculous, and they should never have let PG&E off the hook from paying their fines for the destructive broken lines they never fixed in 80 yrs that caused the biggest CA fires.
If we can't predict risk 30 years out then are we likely to move to 5 or 10 year mortgages as in many other countries?
As it stands today, you practically need to hire a lawyer to get an insurance company to fulfill their end of the contract. We are being consumed by corporations, meanwhile our idiot, governor and his supporters are more interested in sending soldiers to the Florida Keys to stop Haitians, who are destitute, and have no means of travel from coming here instead of dealing with this horrendous insurance crisis.
In a very short time, none of us will be driving or owning a home and I’m sure we will elect someone to find a suitable group to blame for our problems
Add Texas to the list.
Im a omnipotent brains 🧠 storming is thy name of Albert Einstein
I don't think the government will reimburse the full amount for the multimillion dollar homes in Miami.
Fundamentally, are key aspects of life insurable through the private sector for the vast majority of older and poorer Americans?
The arguments for a Citizens Insurance State government sponsored plan, or a Medicare for All Federal government health insurance program are not philosophical. It's economical.
For years the price of homes, cars and healthcare and (college education) has risen faster than average wages have. So, how can a capitalist society survive when the cost of basic needs becomes too expensive for the vast majority of people?
I am not advocating for Socialism, but has Capitalism worked in America? Or has it simply caused a massive wealth shift and concentration away from the now massive number of working poor and poor retirees to the large companies and the small number of elite families that are the principle shareholders in those companies?
Is America slowly by steadily heading toward the economics of Victorian England? Are we becoming a two class society with 85% of the population living near or below the poverty line?
And I don't use the Federal limits for poverty. That is not poverty. I use the basic number of an income of $40K per year for a Single Person as being the threshold for being working poor or entering lower middle class.
Governments should get out of the insurance business, but they SHOULD enforce transparency on the private insurers. If you build in a forest in California, why should taxpayers subsidize your lifestyle? Private insurance (properly priced based on risk) is part of the cost of your lifestyle. Over time, this will reduce building in idiotic locations, reducing the overall economic impact of disasters.
Try getting it CA now. The state run Fair plan is now doing the heavy lifting.
A stare that doesn't house the population but protects investments sounds streamlined and successful.
7:53 pro tip: check your policy coverage for the phrase “replacement value” or “estimated value” - they are waaaaay different things! Also, since cars cost $50k to $500M or more now, what’s replacement value on all those multi-car households. Cost of rental cars. Hotels for insured people and hotels for homeless people. Be lucky if you can keep leasing a car or buy the cheap old used kind. 🎲
$50 K ($50,000) is a reasonable price for a car.
But $500 M ? ($500 million?)
That seems a tad too much for one car!
The topic aside, this woman is very attractive.
The United States is speeding towards an immovable wall. Not just in the matter of insurance.
Not sure why banks continue to lend in disaster-prone areas. Is it because they pass on the loans to government-based agencies or unsuspecting investors?
She didn't even touch upon the impacts this has on commercial real estate. The costs are so enormous here in Florida people are turning to private money lenders (the seller) to finance uninsured or vastly under-insured commercial property. This will radically increase the cost of doing business through higher rents and lower valuations of properties, leading to economic distress - or worse.
Captain obviously doesn't have any other ideas
My neighbor had Sentry insurance until he saw their headquarters
Great video..Now with the increasing costs of insurance and some companies pulling out of risky places like Calif,and Florida..There can't be anymore denial about climate not changing..She said it right here several times in the 80s and 90s we would have a billion dollars disaster every 4 months or so..in the past 15 years that increased from 4 or 5 per year up to 15 per year and now the past 5 years 20 or more billion dollar disasters every year..The insurance industry will collapse they are in the business to make money not go bankrupt..NOAA puts out a widely available chart on billion dollar disasters every year..Everyone needs to look at it and determine what their risks are where they live.. its the smart thing to do.
Totally 99percent of thy entirely new world
Insure against geomagnetic excursion?
Where do you live?
This is why a lot of people are also migrating overseas etc….
This is our last stable decade on Earth.
The last stable decade was last decade. There's nothing stable about what is happening now.
@@TobinMiller-wt6yfOne might argue that the last "stable" decade was the 1960s, if one is defining "stable" as being most similar to the hundreds of years prior (< 50 yearly natural disasters worldwide). Since the 70s, the count of natural disasters began to increase. In the '80 the planet averaged @ 100 yearly natural disasters worldwide. 250 in the 90s. And after the century turned, we blew up to nearly 400 and have been hovering between 350-400 natural disasters worldwide since. Stable is not something many people on this planet have ever experienced.
The insurance industry is going to make a profit no matter what. Not one penny of any tax dollars should go to subsidize them. Especially in the red states who are against any form of social safety net.
Climate is always changing with or without humans. The solution is simple, don't live in flood and wildfire zones. In reality all the waterfront land should be public parks, not owned by individuals. If individuals want to live right on the ocean then they should pay for it. . Not the government!
What kind of pension fund obligations do Home Insurance companies carry for their career professionals? I have frequently wondered how the retirement payout of an insurance agent or broker is structured. Is it possible the actuarial projections for long term pension fund obligations were built during the years before climate change became a real phenomenon?
Interior home inspections are on the verge of reality, just as exterior home inspections have been around for a while. Insurance companies are beginning to act as though they own your home and can tell you what to do with your property. Unfortunately, the song about "little boxes, little boxes" has become a sticky "ticky tacky" truth.
Part of my absolute freedom includes getting other people to pay for my stupidity until we're all bankrupt.
Along with the most obvious situation is the guy with the idea that he has the best answer claiming that it will only be a few days before...? Quit drinking OIL
"There is no legitimate discussion to be had about climate anything from any perspective without first addressing the climate engineering intervention operations."- Dane Wigington.
There needs to be a lot of new housing built all over this country and the government is going to have to assist in some way, or we’re destined to be a society of paupers.
Oh the irony of RUclips giving PBS a UN Context "Fact Check" !
Build on a sand bar sanibel omg 😢
These poor insurance companies. How are they going to pay their CEO's their average yearly 15-30 million in compensation. Yet alone the poor rest of the boatd members, etc.
Hubba hubba