More California implosion

On the positive side, at least this doesn’t have anything to do with their disastrous one party policies. :rolleyes:
 
Which in a capitalist market means costs will come down and another insurer will fill the void, and since the source is unobtainable, I’d doubt the policy effects the whole State but rather select areas
 
archives said:
Which in a capitalist market means costs will come down and another insurer will fill the void, and since the source is unobtainable, I’d doubt the policy effects the whole State but rather select areas
Click to expand...

How will costs come down when marginal utility dictates they increase with a decrease in supply of the service?
 
anonymoose said:
. It’s not just State Farm. Allstate no longer sells new home insurance policies in California

Californians looking to buy a house face some of the country’s most expensive real estate prices and wildfires that threaten scores of housing tracts. Now there’s another obstacle: finding an insurer willing to cover their dream home.
Read more: https://www.latimes.com/business/st...stop-selling-new-home-insurance-in-california
Click to expand...

I think the same thing is going to happen to Florida.

Many of the insurance companies have already gone bankrupt after the last few hurricanes there.

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local...-only-expected-to-get-worse-analysts/3027455/
 
My best friend lives in L.A. and is big in the corporate insurance world. I asked him about this and his response 'this is what happens when you won't allow insurers to price in risk'.

As I understand it basically the state wants to put caps on certain costs under the guise of 'consumer protection' but won't them raise costs elsewhere to make up for the loss. In such a scenario it's not surprising companies are reducing what they offer or pulling out altogether.

Most of this is directed at people who live in higher risk wildfire areas (Lake Tahoe is one example). Since little happens in a vacuum this is also a result of the state's NIMBYism. The state has basically stopped growth in urban areas so people move further out where it is more 'affordable'. Some of these further out areas are in more wildfire prone areas (and we won't get into how poorly the state has handled that).
 
cawacko said:
My best friend lives in L.A. and is big in the corporate insurance world. I asked him about this and his response 'this is what happens when you won't allow insurers to price in risk'.

As I understand it basically the state wants to put caps on certain costs under the guise of 'consumer protection' but won't them raise costs elsewhere to make up for the loss. In such a scenario it's not surprising companies are reducing what they offer or pulling out altogether.

Most of this is directed at people who live in higher risk wildfire areas (Lake Tahoe is one example). Since little happens in a vacuum this is also a result of the state's NIMBYism. The state has basically stopped growth in urban areas so people move further out where it is more 'affordable'. Some of these further out areas are in more wildfire prone areas (and we won't get into how poorly the state has handled that).
Click to expand...

Ironic, in New York the opposite occurs, cities won’t aid in further out development since it cost them to provide services and often overtaxes the existing infrastructure
 
anonymoose said:
. It’s not just State Farm. Allstate no longer sells new home insurance policies in California

Californians looking to buy a house face some of the country’s most expensive real estate prices and wildfires that threaten scores of housing tracts. Now there’s another obstacle: finding an insurer willing to cover their dream home.
Read more: https://www.latimes.com/business/st...stop-selling-new-home-insurance-in-california
Click to expand...

Its as bad or worse in Florida:

https://www.insurance.com/home-and-renters-insurance/home-insurers-leaving-florida
 
archives said:
Ironic, in New York the opposite occurs, cities won’t aid in further out development since it cost them to provide services and often overtaxes the existing infrastructure
Click to expand...

NIMBYism is of the few (it seems) remaining bi-partisan things in this country. Here it is practically a religion. The irony of it here is this state talks and focuses so much on climate change (so dense housing around public transportation and jobs should be appealing) yet NIMBYism reigns supreme. I can't answer why having people build further out is better than more dense urban housing but that's what is occurring. Which brings us to the wildfire dangers and people not getting insured.
 
anonymoose said:
On the positive side, at least this doesn’t have anything to do with their disastrous one party policies. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
cawacko said:
My best friend lives in L.A. and is big in the corporate insurance world. I asked him about this and his response 'this is what happens when you won't allow insurers to price in risk'.

As I understand it basically the state wants to put caps on certain costs under the guise of 'consumer protection' but won't them raise costs elsewhere to make up for the loss. In such a scenario it's not surprising companies are reducing what they offer or pulling out altogether.

Most of this is directed at people who live in higher risk wildfire areas (Lake Tahoe is one example). Since little happens in a vacuum this is also a result of the state's NIMBYism. The state has basically stopped growth in urban areas so people move further out where it is more 'affordable'. Some of these further out areas are in more wildfire prone areas (and we won't get into how poorly the state has handled that).
Click to expand...

Oy, I was wrong.
 
cawacko said:
My best friend lives in L.A. and is big in the corporate insurance world. I asked him about this and his response 'this is what happens when you won't allow insurers to price in risk'.

As I understand it basically the state wants to put caps on certain costs under the guise of 'consumer protection' but won't them raise costs elsewhere to make up for the loss. In such a scenario it's not surprising companies are reducing what they offer or pulling out altogether.

Most of this is directed at people who live in higher risk wildfire areas (Lake Tahoe is one example). Since little happens in a vacuum this is also a result of the state's NIMBYism. The state has basically stopped growth in urban areas so people move further out where it is more 'affordable'. Some of these further out areas are in more wildfire prone areas (and we won't get into how poorly the state has handled that).
Click to expand...

Global warming you lying evil shit
 
archives said:
Home costs, if they can’t get insurance, houses will be worth less on the market
Click to expand...

And people need insurance


If the market can’t provide it the state can set up a non profit insurance of homes


Take that you corporate whores


No profit means it will be much much cheaper
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top