https://www.financedigest.com/still-living-at-home-a-third-of-the-nation-cant-afford-to-rent.html
Yes, American governments are infamously responsive to immigrant, people of color, and LGBTQIA peoples concerns. Your privilege is showing.
Because their desires for better-staffed fire departments are so much different than the rest of the population?
2 Likes
These 2 are saying something very different than the majority canât move IMO
The first says housing costs are too high: they canât afford to stay or to move. Thatâs true for many Americans, but I donât see how subsidizing beach front property helps with affordable housing in general. Thatâs high dollar property already. They say "Their main reasons for moving: seeking more affordable housing (72%), lower cost of living (67%), safety (66%), and increased living space (66%). And again, 34% would move for âpolitical reasons.â All good reasons, but moving to the beach doesnât do any of these things.
The second is about a minority of young Londoners donât want to or canât move. Their reasons "
- I want to be with my family (44%)
- Iâm saving for a house/deposit (43%)
- My parents want me to stay (40%)
- To have more disposable income (38%)
- I canât afford to rent (33%)"
Both seem to be more about affordable housing issues than creating subsidies for weather hazards. We do have some real issues with affordable housing in many areas. Iâd suggest addressing that head on rather than subsidizing wealthy coastal property owners is a much better solution.
2 Likes
With such a statement, I might wonder if youâre making a couple of incorrect assumptions about me.
While exceptions to this might not be impossible, generally fire protection classes span entire communities. To the extent that there is better or worse protection based on which side of the tracks you live on in townâŚthatâs not going to be recognized in the PC, unless âtracksâ represents a municipal border or (less likely) the border of discrete fire protection districts.
I actually suspect that if one were to calculate an âaverage protection classâ metric by ethnicity or other group, youâd find that the average PC of POC and non-cis/het people is actually lower than those who are not members of such groups, by virtue of such people being more likely to live in urban areas where the lowest PCs can be found.
(Iâm not familiar enough with the geographic distribution of immigrants vs non-immigrants to venture a guess about that axis.)
1 Like
âYour privilege is showingâ is not a phrase to be overused, please. (says someone who is a double/triple minority in the workplaceâŚ)
Anyway, forcing lower prices doesnât do much, other than create less availability of insurance. See: California insurance.
2 Likes
NJ actually has a program where they will buy a property that is a flood prone zone (hurricanes are not as likely). This seems to be a good example of the govt stepping in to reduce the risk of people who cannot afford to pay for insurance and cannot afford to move.
Imma stay out of the HO discussion at this point as others have made the relevant points I think, but Iâd be more inclined to agree with this general idea in an auto rate thread.
While I stand by my assertion that subsidies to support equity and accessibility are best left for the government rather than being a requirement imposed on private insurersâŚthere is something to be said for the idea of government underwriting basic auto liability coverage, because in most of North America, having a car is essentially a necessity, but there are equity issues when it comes to the affordability of coverage for financial responsibility.
I say we need to go completely the opposite way. For example FEMA just comes out of the Federal government so is implicitly just taxed peanut-butter across the country. FEMA should be carved out as its own tax (as should NFIP subsidy) and there should be geographic-driven differences. Why is Minnesota subsidizing beachfront property owners!?
Broadly speaking, in the US government resources to respond to ordinary disasters are supposed to be established and funded at a local level.
FEMAâs involvement is partly to help state/local governments plan for disaster response, and to help out when the disasters reach a point where local resources are overwhelmed and a federal response is necessary.
Sure, Minnesota isnât likely to be whacked by a Cat 5 hurricane, but Florida isnât likely to be hit by a blizzard of the millennium, and both places are equally likely to be afflicted by a meteor impact.
Throw in economic relationships â e.g. while Minnesota may not feel the destruction of a Cat 5 hurricane, there may be some economic damages experienced in MN from such an event â and peanut-buttering support for many FEMA activities makes sense.
My exact thoughts basically.
We have CAT AALs for that (at least the material ones). The risk of WS in MN is a fraction of the risk of Hurricane in Florida, it definitely doesnât come close to being fair to peanut-butter the cost. And disaster prevention is good, but thatâs still going to be proportionate to disaster risk and thus should be funded in the same risk-based way.
For this purpose (looking at federal disaster support), primary insurance AALs are not the figures to look at. Exceedance probabilities of a sort that might be used to measure frequency from a reinsurerâs basis.
In theory, if FEMA does major disaster responses in Florida every year, but Minnesota only once in every 20 yearsâŚthen that would be a problem, pointing to Florida needing to do more to be able to take care of itself. But if both states were to need help with about the same frequencyâŚthatâs probably good enough.
(I donât know what the exceedance probabilities are supposed to be on the state vs federal response divide. Iâm not certain that thereâs an official guideline that frames it on that basis.)
Going back to an insurance basis, however, I also should have pointed out that both Florida and Minnesota benefit from diversification when their risks are pooled together in an insurance market, which in turn justifies some small amount of cost-sharing. The easiest place to see that cost-sharing in the wild would be to consider the impact of increased reinsurance costs this year on property insurance rates indicated in different locales.
Sure, letâs allocate based on 95th TVaRs and I still say MNâs contributions to FEMA drop by 90%.
I would think there could be some historical accounting of what money from FEMA has gone to which states and assess the states accordingly.
1 Like
That would work somewhat but if weâre talking about 1 in 100 year events, thereâs not much history there. Iâm not sure how good the science is, but using soil samples to look at what happened prior to recorded history might help to give a larger sample size for some types of catastrophes.
The regulators will love that pricing scheme.
2 Likes
Youâd probably need some kind of metric like: (FEMA net disaster relief expenditures by state)/(Federal revenue by state), expressed over a long period of time and/or modeled out into the future.
Google does return a few hits for âFEMA expenditures by stateâ, but they lack detail, seem limited to short windows of time, and I donât think they include offsets for repayments of disaster relief loan programs. The most recent multi-year figures are also potentially muddied by the use of disaster relief funds as part of the federal response to COVID.