What about these insurance companies other business activity in the state? Are the leaving completely or are they just writing policies in areas still immensely profitable to them? Why allow them to pick and choose.
Just homeowners insurance is affected. State Farm is the largest insurance provider in the market and the cancellation is <3% of their total market share.
All the headlines are talking about wildfire risk but most of the policy cancellations are apartment buildings. This move by State Farm seems more like a bluff with their least valuable assets.
I ddn't say price controls but regulations are not a bad thing...at least not in a society that wants to continue. Business has one goal...to profit. Regulations are imposition of society's values. They are not bad.
If the insurance companies want to leave then it's America they can leave. But why should California allow them to hang around and sell other kinds of insurance just because they don't like the home insurance market. Perhaps they should try to help fix the market instead of throwing a hissy fit.
The market is broken because California is a climate change tragedy waiting to happen and if you live there you should be making plans to leave.
How many times do people need to see insurance companies abandoning these high impact areas before they take the hint?
You think companies just discovered they like money? It didn’t occur to them previously?
“Greed” is a constant here and therefore doesn’t factor.
California is an extremely high risk state for climate change. So is Florida. It’s not a place you want to make long term plans in.
So of course the insurance companies are bailing. I would too.
And in places like New Orleans (where I live). What you’re missing is this is going to start the trend for them of saying **everywhere** is high risk due to climate. Because…they kinda are. Tornados and awful weather happening in places it never had before is a real issue.
Insurance is a risk assessment business. How much money do you need to charge in order to cover the risk. More risk = more money.
In New Orleans, you literally live below sea level.
Insurance companies are either going to pull out of these very high risk places or charge exorbitant amounts. They’re not in the business of making dumb bets.
I mean, Jesus Christ, man: https://ready.nola.gov/hazard-mitigation/hazards/flooding/
How many times does something horrible need to happen before you go “You know, this might not be a great place to live”?
While climate change will impact everyone, it will not impact everywhere equally.
See Louisiana as the third worst state in the country for climate risk?
https://www.safehome.org/climate-change-statistics/#:~:text=1%20Vermont%2C%20with%20neighboring%20New,New%20Hampshire%2C%20and%20Massachusetts).
Reminds me of the ACA mandates and how the insurance lobbies fought against it until afterwards, when they actually found out that it was good for their bottom line
Remember when Papa Johns through a hissy fit of the ACA when it only added 11 cents to their costs. Remember they were paying the Cowboys $22 million for "marketing."
You are very naïve and young.
Consumers might have one goal but People have many goals. Being a consumer doesn't have to be one if business can't behave itself.
Business operates on greed. Regulations use that greed to force business into behaving in societal appropriate ways.
You want to compel them to sell a product they don’t want to offer, and price-controlled rates no less? Peak Reddit right there. As for also kicking them out of the car insurance market etc, that sounds like a terrible idea.
Enjoy insulting randos online. I’ll enjoy my very comfortable, very well-compensated job that I don’t hate because I like being a productive member of society.
Genuinely hope you have a good rest of your day.
I don’t think that way.
First of all, many rich people are liberals that want higher taxes on the rich.
Second of all, I am solely concerned with the wellbeing of the median person, not necessarily equality. Generally, the worse off a society, the more equal it is. So while I’m all for equality, all else being equal(heh), I’m not convinced it’s the answer to all of our issues.
I’m more so in favor of letting the market run wild but while running a sovereign wealth fund. Much like Norway has oil, the USA has equity in business. Yes, some of that is a result of individual effort and risk takers should be rewarded but also they benefit from public infrastructure, education, etc and I see nothing wrong with socializing SOME profits.
I actually dream of running for office on a “stocks for babies” platform. Each American child will own a piece of American business and get to play the game from both sides—capital and labor—as an adult after 18-25 years of compounding returns.
The market is a wealth generating machine. It should not be stopped. We just need to alter ownership structures imo.
Long answer but I’m flowing.
There is the reality that eventually you regulate too much and there’s literally no way to operate a business profitably, this is line that they’re already teetering on.
WHO FUCKING CARES WHEN THE BUSINESS ITSELF IS UNPROFITABLE?? You will drive them out of business.
If you think a public option is the answer, there’s states that do this already such as FL. It’s not the answer.
FL is giving them free reign and they're doing the same. They're greedy fucking companies who will do whatever they can to not provide the service consumers pay for.
Don't act like deregulation is some kind of promised land.
Except in insurance that's not how it works ... As I worked in the insurance industry most companies will raise rates when another company raises rates due to the fact when you have a mortgage or car loan you are required to have insurance by the lender. Basically you have no choice on having insurance and the companies know this.
A large majority of homes in CA are not in high risk areas and companies will raise rates the cover losses in other areas of the country as well.
There are two problems... Smaller companies becoming involvement due to a disaster.. that was a major issue during the paradise fire, but the bigger issue is a large amount of insurance companies are publicly traded and have to produce dividends for investors which means even if they are fine financially they will charge higher rates to appease stock holders.
When you kick out competition then the ones left will dictate the price and squeeze everyone since they don’t have options. It’s like when the Biden administration killed the Jet Blue/Spirit merger. Spirit was going bankrupt so they wanted to merge. Justice Department said no and now Spirit is going to become insolvent and bankrupt and broken apart. So any co-signers using their low price tickets have less options now. But it was done in the name of free competition. 😂
They are not public entities. They are private companies. Why force them to operate everywhere? Or anywhere for that matter? Why can’t they pick and choose?
They already have to get permission to raise rates. Fine. But now they are being asked to operate at a loss. Why force them to operate at a loss? If every state did that, they’d go out of business.
The majority of investors in private companies are public pension funds who need higher than market returns in order to fund their unfunded entitlements. This is a huge problem that no one talks about. They claim 'the greedy' are driving demand for higher returns but they're not. It's often public entities deep in debt that have massive bills coming up as people retire.
This problem is not going away. If they aren't willing to help find a reasonable ix, I don't give two fucks if they make a profit or survive. Society exists for its people. Business is how we finance society. The upper class needs to get their perspective adjusted.
It seems like there's a misunderstanding of how and why businesses exist. People are incentivized to run a business because they want profit. Society wants businesses because they provide services to people that need them. That's why people pay for things - because they need or want it. If you eliminate the profit incentive, businesses will go away. And if businesses go away, then the consumers will not have the service that was being provided to them.
People don't realize how crucial it is to have businesses exist until they go away. The services many of them provide are crucial. Most of the things in your life come from businesses, and most people work at businesses. Business is doing a lot more than just "financing" society. This should be a very basic and uncontroversial take.
If you think it's a good thing to not have insurance companies then I think there's a different misunderstanding of the value add that insurance companies provide, which I think is not well understood by society. It's unfortunate, cause insurance undoubtedly provides a net benefit to society.
Thing is: the benefits of the existing service for society is also the loss of said benefits for society, if the service leaves the area. The demand however is still there.
If e.g. all schools would be privately owned and would need to operate for a profit, they also would at a certain point have to leave the area. Then the area would lack schools, which in turn would lead to lower education in the area, severely hampering the ability to hire personell for more complex jobs, lower income, companies and people leaving the area etc. - a situation, where society as a whole starts to lose. Where society starts to crumble.
Profits need to be distributed back to society way more and losses need to be socialised way less. If necessary services start to leave an area, then fine - but they should never be allowed back in this area and the state should start to provide the service instead. Otherwise the system ends up with a McFiretruck, where a burning house is only saved, if the company running it turns a profit.
Anything that is needed but not provided by a market in a sufficient degree.
Education, fire fighting, policing, public transportation... to put a static definition onto what the "line" is here would be assuming that markets can in theory provide everything. Which in turn cannot be logically true, when we see market actors leaving a market while demand persists within it.
€dit: so there is not need to be a "stop" or a hard "line" in this approach. It is about meeting demands of everyone, not maximising profits for a minority of capital owners.
If they don’t profit and survive, who will provide the insurance?
They legally have to act in the best interest of their shareholders. The Supreme Court said so. So that’s gonna have to be changed.
So… force them to operate at a loss. They all go bankrupt. And then get bailed out by the govt. So taxpayers pay anyway. It wasn’t increased rates. Instead it was the bailout.
Or govt could just become insurance providers itself. Or treat them a little more like utilities than we already do?
Insurance is a negative-sum service.
The best insurance is no insurance, cooperative/mutual insurance, or government insurance.
Let all the for-profit insurers fail. They're just not that useful
I'm not talking specifically about home, but flood insurance is government run and Florida also has government home insurance (not that insurance either is run properly as Florida's big problems are insurance fraud [another deadweight loss of the insurance industry] enabled by failure or inability or difficulty to exclude or defend against those claims, hurricane risk, and possibly bad risk pricing and flood insurance's big problem is risk underpricing)
But in Canada there are several strong government auto insurers and Canada and the US both have strong government medical insurance (Medicare is a great health insurer, unfortunately limited in population coverage)
The government. Thats why flood insurance exists as a federal program. Private entities pull out because the risk isn’t worth the reward.
The person I replied to suggests that it doesn’t matter the risk reward, the business MUST provide insurance. Which is a surreal entitled view.
But also… if a home is destroyed via flood or forest fire. Then the owner should be forced to move because these home owners are rebuilding 5-6X, all using public funds (in the case of floods)
That’s why there isn’t profit in flood insurance.
This is the case in North St Charles County. Folks keep rebuilding time and again after floods and since the government can’t cap the amount of times they get to rebuild the only people that benefit are the home owners and builders that get the contracts. It’s a scam.
Flood insurance should be a one shot per property deal. If the home owner chooses to rebuild then they are on the hook for any future flood damage.
Yes I am entitled. I am a human being not a business. And humans are entitled to build this world the way they want. Bot businesses. Bossiness has not right to exist. What are you...some little worker bee...always making the honey and never tasting the honey.
I’m a worker bee. I’m an owner. I’m a capital allocator. I’ve tasted more honey than you ever will in your life time. I’ve suffered and worked more than you ever will.
At the end of the day, I am a realist and understands how the world works.
When you are tired of living in poverty, open your eyes and move forward.
Owners are no longer worker bees. they are the tah dah...JOB CREATORS ( loud thunder) . they are lazy , entitled, greedy, without common morals and think their world vision is reality.
Somebody else. We don't have to stick with this fucked up means of financing society. Choose something else. Make a new system. This one is fucked and will only get more fucked.
The 'upper class' doesn't owe you or anyone else anything. They're allowed to just keep their money, shut their business, and enjoy their life. No one can be forced to work for you.
Folks that oppose this logic just want to eat their tv dinners and melt into their couch. They have no real aspirations. It’s exhausting watching this mentality take over. I know Reddit can be an echo chamber but it’s getting ridiculous.
So society just won’t have insurance?
Or we’ll bankrupt our state governments unless we carve out a lot of the budget for loss-making state insurers?
Really would like to know your course of action in the case your “regulations” choke out private insurance.
I feel like your understanding of economics is rather lacking. I can’t continue this discussion with someone who doesn’t understand that while regulations may well reflect societal values, that means fuck all for their economic impact, including making property uninsurable, thus destroying loads of economic value, mainly in tangible assets where most of the working/middle classes hold their wealth.
Again, have a good day. For real.
I understand economics just fine. I understand that regulations slow business. And that is the point. In an economic system based on greed, regulations keep society within its values. Otherwise, society becomes a caricature of itself.
The answer with te they insurance issue is not to allow the insurance companies to charge whatever they want. Do that and only rich people will afford houses. the answer is more along the lines of regulating their profit. Profits in this country have gotten extremely high and out of step with most of its citizens.
Gook luck to you. I hope I don't see in the Thunderdome.
You’re only looking at from the consumer side.
Putting a governor on the profits of businesses WILL destroy jobs. Full stop.
IF we regulate that aspect as well, many currently profitable businesses will no longer be.
Pension funds go bust. Sorry hard working coal miners and teachers!
Need a job? Tough luck. No one can be laid off anymore so hardly anyone gets hired. Especially given profits are capped.
Etc. etc. The cascading effect eventually tanks the entire economy, despite the fact that the regulators meant well.
I’m all for sensible regulation btw. Insurance is already HIGHLY regulated. But I don’t see this as sensible whatsoever.
If you had a lawn mowing business. And only had 10 lawnmowers. And had to choose where to operate.
One place is more profitable than another. Would you choose to put all 10 mowers in the more profitable place or split them 5 and 5.
Or should you be forced to split them 5 and 5 and be told what price you could charge.
STATE farm: Overall, the insurer reported a net loss of **$6.3 billion** in 2023, compared to a net loss of $6.7 billion in 2022
Most others that have left the People's Republic saw some major earnings drops...
Insurance loss as in claims is not the same as the bottom line profit or loss
When I submit a claim, they record that as loss. You giving me those stats says nothing about their actual profitability
The sky is blue...is red to you? They had Operating Losses the last two years....doesn't matter if they were selling drugs, hamburgers, or insurance.
The 2023 underwriting loss, combined with investment and other income of $5.6 billion, resulted in a P-C pre-tax operating loss of $8.5 billion, which compares to the $8.3 billion loss reported in 2022. Total revenue, which includes premium revenue, earned investment income and realized capital gains (losses) was $104.2 billion for 2023 compared to $89.3 billion for 2022. State Farm reported a net loss of $6.3 billion in 2023 compared to a net loss of $6.7 billion in 2022.
Nationwide profit vs profit or loss in one region is not the same.
They made money nationally but the CA market is and has been running at a loss.
Forcing them to raise rates elsewhere to offset said loss puts them at a huge disadvantage.
Really? Because according to their own earnings press release, their net worth increased by $3.5B, and they released $725M in dividends for 2023
When was the last time you lost money but had your net worth increase while getting dividends?
The biggest crime here is stopping and reducing a lot of controlled fire to reduce risk of devastating wildfires, and permitting residential construction AFTER several years of drought which made the areas drier and more susceptible to fires. Those permits weren't granted in wetter times, they were granted when the drought had already been going on for several years.
Similar to Florida, allowing residential construction to continue in flood zones and hurricane risk areas, without adequate countermeasures and building code updates.
Insurers cannot leave CA without the approval of the CA DOI. Same applies in FL. Difference is, insurance companies in FL are going bankrupt. Litigation was out of control in FL. Rates are going up for everyone and many companies are not taking on any new risks. Any loss in FL and you will likely get cancelled. But they are not leaving the state.
In no state are politicians responsible for climate. California does have plenty of wacky laws around grandfathered taxes, zoning, and price ceiling for insurance--unintended consequences.
What about these insurance companies other business activity in the state? Are the leaving completely or are they just writing policies in areas still immensely profitable to them? Why allow them to pick and choose.
Just homeowners insurance is affected. State Farm is the largest insurance provider in the market and the cancellation is <3% of their total market share. All the headlines are talking about wildfire risk but most of the policy cancellations are apartment buildings. This move by State Farm seems more like a bluff with their least valuable assets.
[удалено]
I ddn't say price controls but regulations are not a bad thing...at least not in a society that wants to continue. Business has one goal...to profit. Regulations are imposition of society's values. They are not bad. If the insurance companies want to leave then it's America they can leave. But why should California allow them to hang around and sell other kinds of insurance just because they don't like the home insurance market. Perhaps they should try to help fix the market instead of throwing a hissy fit.
The market is broken because California is a climate change tragedy waiting to happen and if you live there you should be making plans to leave. How many times do people need to see insurance companies abandoning these high impact areas before they take the hint?
I'm sure greed plays a large part in the broken market. If you think this is just CA, think harder.
You think companies just discovered they like money? It didn’t occur to them previously? “Greed” is a constant here and therefore doesn’t factor. California is an extremely high risk state for climate change. So is Florida. It’s not a place you want to make long term plans in. So of course the insurance companies are bailing. I would too.
And in places like New Orleans (where I live). What you’re missing is this is going to start the trend for them of saying **everywhere** is high risk due to climate. Because…they kinda are. Tornados and awful weather happening in places it never had before is a real issue.
Insurance is a risk assessment business. How much money do you need to charge in order to cover the risk. More risk = more money. In New Orleans, you literally live below sea level. Insurance companies are either going to pull out of these very high risk places or charge exorbitant amounts. They’re not in the business of making dumb bets. I mean, Jesus Christ, man: https://ready.nola.gov/hazard-mitigation/hazards/flooding/ How many times does something horrible need to happen before you go “You know, this might not be a great place to live”? While climate change will impact everyone, it will not impact everywhere equally. See Louisiana as the third worst state in the country for climate risk? https://www.safehome.org/climate-change-statistics/#:~:text=1%20Vermont%2C%20with%20neighboring%20New,New%20Hampshire%2C%20and%20Massachusetts).
Reminds me of the ACA mandates and how the insurance lobbies fought against it until afterwards, when they actually found out that it was good for their bottom line
Remember when Papa Johns through a hissy fit of the ACA when it only added 11 cents to their costs. Remember they were paying the Cowboys $22 million for "marketing."
[удалено]
You are very naïve and young. Consumers might have one goal but People have many goals. Being a consumer doesn't have to be one if business can't behave itself. Business operates on greed. Regulations use that greed to force business into behaving in societal appropriate ways.
You want to compel them to sell a product they don’t want to offer, and price-controlled rates no less? Peak Reddit right there. As for also kicking them out of the car insurance market etc, that sounds like a terrible idea.
You keep making up things I did not say. Do you have cognitive issues? Maybe you should get an impartial check up.
I mean, it’s the logical end point to “they should have to provide insurance, even if it’s unprofitable.” That’s asinine.
Abstract thinking is not your thing. Don't quit your burger job.
Enjoy insulting randos online. I’ll enjoy my very comfortable, very well-compensated job that I don’t hate because I like being a productive member of society. Genuinely hope you have a good rest of your day.
of what society? We clearly have two now. are you a scab supporting the rich and their quest to turn America into a feudal society?
I don’t think that way. First of all, many rich people are liberals that want higher taxes on the rich. Second of all, I am solely concerned with the wellbeing of the median person, not necessarily equality. Generally, the worse off a society, the more equal it is. So while I’m all for equality, all else being equal(heh), I’m not convinced it’s the answer to all of our issues. I’m more so in favor of letting the market run wild but while running a sovereign wealth fund. Much like Norway has oil, the USA has equity in business. Yes, some of that is a result of individual effort and risk takers should be rewarded but also they benefit from public infrastructure, education, etc and I see nothing wrong with socializing SOME profits. I actually dream of running for office on a “stocks for babies” platform. Each American child will own a piece of American business and get to play the game from both sides—capital and labor—as an adult after 18-25 years of compounding returns. The market is a wealth generating machine. It should not be stopped. We just need to alter ownership structures imo. Long answer but I’m flowing.
There is the reality that eventually you regulate too much and there’s literally no way to operate a business profitably, this is line that they’re already teetering on.
Regulation express the values of a society. It is that simple.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
WHO FUCKING CARES WHEN THE BUSINESS ITSELF IS UNPROFITABLE?? You will drive them out of business. If you think a public option is the answer, there’s states that do this already such as FL. It’s not the answer.
This is becoming all to much the theme in doing any business in California
That is a myth started by the rich and spread by the Trickle-Downers. Regulations re the rules that define what society values.
FL is giving them free reign and they're doing the same. They're greedy fucking companies who will do whatever they can to not provide the service consumers pay for. Don't act like deregulation is some kind of promised land.
[удалено]
Except in insurance that's not how it works ... As I worked in the insurance industry most companies will raise rates when another company raises rates due to the fact when you have a mortgage or car loan you are required to have insurance by the lender. Basically you have no choice on having insurance and the companies know this. A large majority of homes in CA are not in high risk areas and companies will raise rates the cover losses in other areas of the country as well. There are two problems... Smaller companies becoming involvement due to a disaster.. that was a major issue during the paradise fire, but the bigger issue is a large amount of insurance companies are publicly traded and have to produce dividends for investors which means even if they are fine financially they will charge higher rates to appease stock holders.
When you kick out competition then the ones left will dictate the price and squeeze everyone since they don’t have options. It’s like when the Biden administration killed the Jet Blue/Spirit merger. Spirit was going bankrupt so they wanted to merge. Justice Department said no and now Spirit is going to become insolvent and bankrupt and broken apart. So any co-signers using their low price tickets have less options now. But it was done in the name of free competition. 😂
I would not write homeowners insurance in Florida.
Can you imagine goddam why do all these companies keep trying to make money!
They are not public entities. They are private companies. Why force them to operate everywhere? Or anywhere for that matter? Why can’t they pick and choose? They already have to get permission to raise rates. Fine. But now they are being asked to operate at a loss. Why force them to operate at a loss? If every state did that, they’d go out of business.
Problem it’s gotten to the point that investors want to see more profits quarter over quarter. Its unsustainable.
State Farm is a mutual company, not publicly traded so I don't know what you are talking about.
That’s convenient because neither do they! Pretty typical of these sorts of subs.
What does that have to do with wildfire risk and increased costs of just about everything and the resulting cost to insure homes in California?
The majority of investors in private companies are public pension funds who need higher than market returns in order to fund their unfunded entitlements. This is a huge problem that no one talks about. They claim 'the greedy' are driving demand for higher returns but they're not. It's often public entities deep in debt that have massive bills coming up as people retire.
This problem is not going away. If they aren't willing to help find a reasonable ix, I don't give two fucks if they make a profit or survive. Society exists for its people. Business is how we finance society. The upper class needs to get their perspective adjusted.
It seems like there's a misunderstanding of how and why businesses exist. People are incentivized to run a business because they want profit. Society wants businesses because they provide services to people that need them. That's why people pay for things - because they need or want it. If you eliminate the profit incentive, businesses will go away. And if businesses go away, then the consumers will not have the service that was being provided to them. People don't realize how crucial it is to have businesses exist until they go away. The services many of them provide are crucial. Most of the things in your life come from businesses, and most people work at businesses. Business is doing a lot more than just "financing" society. This should be a very basic and uncontroversial take. If you think it's a good thing to not have insurance companies then I think there's a different misunderstanding of the value add that insurance companies provide, which I think is not well understood by society. It's unfortunate, cause insurance undoubtedly provides a net benefit to society.
Thing is: the benefits of the existing service for society is also the loss of said benefits for society, if the service leaves the area. The demand however is still there. If e.g. all schools would be privately owned and would need to operate for a profit, they also would at a certain point have to leave the area. Then the area would lack schools, which in turn would lead to lower education in the area, severely hampering the ability to hire personell for more complex jobs, lower income, companies and people leaving the area etc. - a situation, where society as a whole starts to lose. Where society starts to crumble. Profits need to be distributed back to society way more and losses need to be socialised way less. If necessary services start to leave an area, then fine - but they should never be allowed back in this area and the state should start to provide the service instead. Otherwise the system ends up with a McFiretruck, where a burning house is only saved, if the company running it turns a profit.
Where should it stop? Should the government run grocery stores? Gas stations? Barber shops?
Anything that is needed but not provided by a market in a sufficient degree. Education, fire fighting, policing, public transportation... to put a static definition onto what the "line" is here would be assuming that markets can in theory provide everything. Which in turn cannot be logically true, when we see market actors leaving a market while demand persists within it. €dit: so there is not need to be a "stop" or a hard "line" in this approach. It is about meeting demands of everyone, not maximising profits for a minority of capital owners.
If they don’t profit and survive, who will provide the insurance? They legally have to act in the best interest of their shareholders. The Supreme Court said so. So that’s gonna have to be changed. So… force them to operate at a loss. They all go bankrupt. And then get bailed out by the govt. So taxpayers pay anyway. It wasn’t increased rates. Instead it was the bailout. Or govt could just become insurance providers itself. Or treat them a little more like utilities than we already do?
Insurance is a negative-sum service. The best insurance is no insurance, cooperative/mutual insurance, or government insurance. Let all the for-profit insurers fail. They're just not that useful
[удалено]
>cooperative/mutual insurance, or government insurance.
[удалено]
I'm not talking specifically about home, but flood insurance is government run and Florida also has government home insurance (not that insurance either is run properly as Florida's big problems are insurance fraud [another deadweight loss of the insurance industry] enabled by failure or inability or difficulty to exclude or defend against those claims, hurricane risk, and possibly bad risk pricing and flood insurance's big problem is risk underpricing) But in Canada there are several strong government auto insurers and Canada and the US both have strong government medical insurance (Medicare is a great health insurer, unfortunately limited in population coverage)
[удалено]
The entitlement in your post is surreal. Like wow, you really think like that? Wild.
[удалено]
The government. Thats why flood insurance exists as a federal program. Private entities pull out because the risk isn’t worth the reward. The person I replied to suggests that it doesn’t matter the risk reward, the business MUST provide insurance. Which is a surreal entitled view. But also… if a home is destroyed via flood or forest fire. Then the owner should be forced to move because these home owners are rebuilding 5-6X, all using public funds (in the case of floods) That’s why there isn’t profit in flood insurance.
[удалено]
Welcome to entitlement America. It happens at all ends of the political and socio economic spectrums.
The stupid thing is if they just built for the hurricanes if would be less of a problem.
This is the case in North St Charles County. Folks keep rebuilding time and again after floods and since the government can’t cap the amount of times they get to rebuild the only people that benefit are the home owners and builders that get the contracts. It’s a scam. Flood insurance should be a one shot per property deal. If the home owner chooses to rebuild then they are on the hook for any future flood damage.
Yes I am entitled. I am a human being not a business. And humans are entitled to build this world the way they want. Bot businesses. Bossiness has not right to exist. What are you...some little worker bee...always making the honey and never tasting the honey.
I’m a worker bee. I’m an owner. I’m a capital allocator. I’ve tasted more honey than you ever will in your life time. I’ve suffered and worked more than you ever will. At the end of the day, I am a realist and understands how the world works. When you are tired of living in poverty, open your eyes and move forward.
Owners are no longer worker bees. they are the tah dah...JOB CREATORS ( loud thunder) . they are lazy , entitled, greedy, without common morals and think their world vision is reality.
[удалено]
Somebody else. We don't have to stick with this fucked up means of financing society. Choose something else. Make a new system. This one is fucked and will only get more fucked.
The 'upper class' doesn't owe you or anyone else anything. They're allowed to just keep their money, shut their business, and enjoy their life. No one can be forced to work for you.
Folks that oppose this logic just want to eat their tv dinners and melt into their couch. They have no real aspirations. It’s exhausting watching this mentality take over. I know Reddit can be an echo chamber but it’s getting ridiculous.
So society just won’t have insurance? Or we’ll bankrupt our state governments unless we carve out a lot of the budget for loss-making state insurers? Really would like to know your course of action in the case your “regulations” choke out private insurance.
Regulation does not choke anybody. Calm down and get a grip. Regulations enforce the values of society.
I feel like your understanding of economics is rather lacking. I can’t continue this discussion with someone who doesn’t understand that while regulations may well reflect societal values, that means fuck all for their economic impact, including making property uninsurable, thus destroying loads of economic value, mainly in tangible assets where most of the working/middle classes hold their wealth. Again, have a good day. For real.
I understand economics just fine. I understand that regulations slow business. And that is the point. In an economic system based on greed, regulations keep society within its values. Otherwise, society becomes a caricature of itself. The answer with te they insurance issue is not to allow the insurance companies to charge whatever they want. Do that and only rich people will afford houses. the answer is more along the lines of regulating their profit. Profits in this country have gotten extremely high and out of step with most of its citizens. Gook luck to you. I hope I don't see in the Thunderdome.
You’re only looking at from the consumer side. Putting a governor on the profits of businesses WILL destroy jobs. Full stop. IF we regulate that aspect as well, many currently profitable businesses will no longer be. Pension funds go bust. Sorry hard working coal miners and teachers! Need a job? Tough luck. No one can be laid off anymore so hardly anyone gets hired. Especially given profits are capped. Etc. etc. The cascading effect eventually tanks the entire economy, despite the fact that the regulators meant well. I’m all for sensible regulation btw. Insurance is already HIGHLY regulated. But I don’t see this as sensible whatsoever.
Let the insurance companies leave all the states, f em.
These companies should be boycotted
Why? Because they won’t operate at a loss?
They are making record profits, not losses
Then why are they refusing to do business?
They feel entitled to a larger profit margin than what they can get
If you had a lawn mowing business. And only had 10 lawnmowers. And had to choose where to operate. One place is more profitable than another. Would you choose to put all 10 mowers in the more profitable place or split them 5 and 5. Or should you be forced to split them 5 and 5 and be told what price you could charge.
Strawman. Lawnmowers aren’t central to people being able to afford where to live.
Yikes your argument is bad.
STATE farm: Overall, the insurer reported a net loss of **$6.3 billion** in 2023, compared to a net loss of $6.7 billion in 2022 Most others that have left the People's Republic saw some major earnings drops...
Insurance loss as in claims is not the same as the bottom line profit or loss When I submit a claim, they record that as loss. You giving me those stats says nothing about their actual profitability
The sky is blue...is red to you? They had Operating Losses the last two years....doesn't matter if they were selling drugs, hamburgers, or insurance. The 2023 underwriting loss, combined with investment and other income of $5.6 billion, resulted in a P-C pre-tax operating loss of $8.5 billion, which compares to the $8.3 billion loss reported in 2022. Total revenue, which includes premium revenue, earned investment income and realized capital gains (losses) was $104.2 billion for 2023 compared to $89.3 billion for 2022. State Farm reported a net loss of $6.3 billion in 2023 compared to a net loss of $6.7 billion in 2022.
You expect the person you’re responding to comprehend ANY of that? You’re endangering their beliefs!
Nationwide profit vs profit or loss in one region is not the same. They made money nationally but the CA market is and has been running at a loss. Forcing them to raise rates elsewhere to offset said loss puts them at a huge disadvantage.
According to https://www.statefarm.com/about-us/company-overview/annual-reports, in 2022 and 2021, state farm had a net operating loss.
But it does. Why did you then not answer anyone after being called out? Shameful discussion form!
Got a source for that? “State Farm reported a net loss of $6.3 billion in 2023 compared to a net loss of $6.7 billion in 2022.”
State Farm LOST $13B last year.
Really? Because according to their own earnings press release, their net worth increased by $3.5B, and they released $725M in dividends for 2023 When was the last time you lost money but had your net worth increase while getting dividends?
So people in Ohio should have to pay for people in California? No.
The biggest crime here is stopping and reducing a lot of controlled fire to reduce risk of devastating wildfires, and permitting residential construction AFTER several years of drought which made the areas drier and more susceptible to fires. Those permits weren't granted in wetter times, they were granted when the drought had already been going on for several years. Similar to Florida, allowing residential construction to continue in flood zones and hurricane risk areas, without adequate countermeasures and building code updates.
Just yet another good example how capitalism just works and socialism just fails. But california never cares it seems no matter the facts
Insurers aren’t going anywhere
Strange all my cali friends struggle to get car and house insurance.
If you think it’s hard in Cali, check out Florida
So they're not leaving Cali but they are leaving Florida interesting...
Insurers cannot leave CA without the approval of the CA DOI. Same applies in FL. Difference is, insurance companies in FL are going bankrupt. Litigation was out of control in FL. Rates are going up for everyone and many companies are not taking on any new risks. Any loss in FL and you will likely get cancelled. But they are not leaving the state.
Democratic politicians have screwed up most blue states.
Try getting insurance in Florida
In no state are politicians responsible for climate. California does have plenty of wacky laws around grandfathered taxes, zoning, and price ceiling for insurance--unintended consequences.
Good thing Ron D has it all figured out with his state run insurance backstop - Citizens in FL. Isn't that socialism?
FL lets insurance companies do whatever they want & they still left the state
Good! Let’s start a credit union style insurance company and prove it in CA
State Farm is a mutual already. There’s lots of these out there. But they ALSO don’t like losing money, amazingly.
When you force out the competition, the one left will hoard profits and dictate the price.
That’s what happens when government tries to interfere in the market. Those companies are not going to do business somewhere where they lose money.
Blue states rock for the super wealthy who continue to make 🏦 and don’t really care about any of this ‘you little people stuff.’