"America's Money"

[kombat]

How can so many more people live right near a major fault line in California? Or an active volcano in Hawaii? Or tornado alley in Oklahoma and Texas?

All great questions.

Why should the rest of the country pay the bill for people who choose to live in places that are well known to be high-risk areas?

My answer, of course, is that they shouldn't. Live wherever you want, but when the inevitable happens, don't ask me to pay for it.

 

[Milton]

How can so many more people live right near a major fault line in California? Or an active volcano in Hawaii? Or tornado alley in Oklahoma and Texas?

Not so difficult to figure out. They are foolish.

While some people have effectively no choice where to live (e.g. Palestinian refugees, other stateless persons), the vast majority of Americans have mobility.

 

[Art G]

Not so difficult to figure out. They are foolish.

While some people have effectively no choice where to live (e.g. Palestinian refugees, other stateless persons), the vast majority of Americans have mobility.

How many places in the U.S. don't have some sort of potential for natural disaster? So, you're saying no one should live in California because one day it may fall into the ocean?
I live at the tip of tornado alley, and I've had to replace four roofs because of hail damage. Believe me, I pay for it in insurance costs. However, am I to be expected to move to somewhere more safe? Do you have a bomb shelter in your back yard?

 

[kombat]

How many places in the U.S. don't have some sort of potential for natural disaster? So, you're saying no one should live in California because one day it may fall into the ocean?

Art, I think what people are getting at (and to get back to the topic of this thread) is that people who are not prepared for obvious threats are fools. It's one thing if you live in Denver and your house gets wiped out by a flood and you don't have flood insurance. Nobody could be reasonably expected to have prepared for that. But if you live in New Orleans and don't have flood insurance, that's just foolish, in my opinion.

If you work in a volatile industry (like subprime lending), and you haven't saved up a reasonable (3-6 months) emergency fund, don't complain when you get laid off and are faced with the prospect of selling your house at a loss to make ends meet.

If you live in California and don't have earthquake insurance, don't complain when your house splits in two.

If you live at the base of a volcano in Hawaii and don't have volcano insurance (does such a thing even exist?), I don't want to see your teary-eyed face crying for federal funding on CNN as a river of molten lava washes your house away.

 

[brewer12345]

Art, I think what people are getting at (and to get back to the topic of this thread) is that people who are not prepared for obvious threats are fools. It's one thing if you live in Denver and your house gets wiped out by a flood and you don't have flood insurance. Nobody could be reasonably expected to have prepared for that. But if you live in New Orleans and don't have flood insurance, that's just foolish, in my opinion.

If you work in a volatile industry (like subprime lending), and you haven't saved up a reasonable (3-6 months) emergency fund, don't complain when you get laid off and are faced with the prospect of selling your house at a loss to make ends meet.

If you live in California and don't have earthquake insurance, don't complain when your house splits in two.

If you live at the base of a volcano in Hawaii and don't have volcano insurance (does such a thing even exist?), I don't want to see your teary-eyed face crying for federal funding on CNN as a river of molten lava washes your house away.

Wow, those who live in flyover country are not only in lala land about housing prices, but also about insurance.

Denver: Has indeed flooded in the apast. Sometimes those rivers/creeks that drain the snowmelt overflow and downtown has been flooded in the past. Flood insurance would indeed be wise.

Earthquake insurance: I'm sure the californians can fill us in, but these programs are so expensive and cover so little that you are probably better off just saving your money.

Volcano: Dunno if it exists, but I bet the Lloyd's market would do it for a suitably egregious price.

Hurricanes: Floridians can confirm that if you can get windstorm insurance, it will be so expensive and cover so little as to be hardly worth it.

Having said that, I don't think others should pay for people to live in hurricane alley, flood plains, etc. But a little sympathy costs you nothing.

 

[kombat]

Denver: Has indeed flooded in the apast.

Bah, it was a wild guess. I picked a place with a really high elevation and assumed it didn't have flood risk. Feel free to substitute any "extremely low flood risk" locale. It doesn't change my point.

 

[Art G]

Art, I think what people are getting at (and to get back to the topic of this thread) is that people who are not prepared for obvious threats are fools. It's one thing if you live in Denver and your house gets wiped out by a flood and you don't have flood insurance. Nobody could be reasonably expected to have prepared for that. But if you live in New Orleans and don't have flood insurance, that's just foolish, in my opinion.

If you work in a volatile industry (like subprime lending), and you haven't saved up a reasonable (3-6 months) emergency fund, don't complain when you get laid off and are faced with the prospect of selling your house at a loss to make ends meet.

If you live in California and don't have earthquake insurance, don't complain when your house splits in two.

If you live at the base of a volcano in Hawaii and don't have volcano insurance (does such a thing even exist?), I don't want to see your teary-eyed face crying for federal funding on CNN as a river of molten lava washes your house away.

Well I live next to a flood plain and see no reason to buy flood insurance (which is extra). I've lived there 23 years and never needed it, however, with building going on downstream, it is possible a future flood could occur. So, should I spend the extra money to buy insurance in all likelihood I'll never need?

 

[brewer12345]

Well I live next to a flood plain and see no reason to buy flood insurance (which is extra). I've lived there 23 years and never needed it, however, with building going on downstream, it is possible a future flood could occur. So, should I spend the extra money to buy insurance in all likelihood I'll never need?

Hey, its unlikely that I will drop dead. Why bother with life insurance? Its not like I'd get to spend the money.

 

[Art G]

BTW, from someone I know whose family lives in Slidell, LA. The insurance companies were disallowing much of the flood insurance anyway. Claiming it wasn't the flood that ruined the houses, but the mold. So, having flood insurance may have been moot.

 

[Milton]

Art, I think what people are getting at (and to get back to the topic of this thread) is that people who are not prepared for obvious threats are fools.

Can't really blame them for being fools, though ... they are just living out their destiny.

I suspect that the great majority of contributors to this forum were lucky enough to be born with above-average intelligence. Here's an article worth reading: Definition of IQ. I don't know how accurate it is, but it's interesting. Be sure to read the "Wandering Down to Walmart" section.

 

[Art G]

Hey, its unlikely that I will drop dead. Why bother with life insurance? Its not like I'd get to spend the money.

LOL! On the other hand, you may live a long and fruitful life. Perhaps you should have a variable annuity with a living benefit?!!!

 

[Rivrider]

I don't feel any fury or animosity, but at the risk of sounding insensitive, how could anybody possibly think it's a good idea to live in a city that is below sea level, right next to the ocean?

I used to live in New Orleans. It's not right next to the ocean. The gulf is quite a few miles away.

When I lived there, read a book about the history of New Orleans. Seems they were suppose to establish the settlement further upstream where it would be above sea level. But the settlers fell in love with the bends in the river(hence the name Crescent City) and put it there. Perhaps not the smartest move, but too late to change it now. And, the city does have it's charms.

Every place has some risk of catastrophe, whether its hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, etc. We've got to live somewhere.

Like most, I've had setbacks in life. Been laid off, unexpected expenses, so I've learned to be ready for them. Was planning a big trip to celebrate ER, but looks like it won't happen because other things came up. Such is life. Not happy about it, but I had the money so it's a disapointment, not a disaster.

 

[Art G]

I've heard Cleveland Ohio is one of the safest places to live....uh, from the perspective of natural disasters anyway. However, if you've ever faced a Cleveland winter, you might choose the earthquake.

 

[haha]

Not so difficult to figure out. They are foolish.

While some people have effectively no choice where to live (e.g. Palestinian refugees, other stateless persons), the vast majority of Americans have mobility.

Yep, they should leave Nob Hill and move to Omaha. How about enjoying the life you have?

Ha

 

[tuixiu]

I think we're relatively natural disaster free here in Phoenix, aside from the occasional rough summer storm.

 

[kombat]

Seems they were suppose to establish the settlement further upstream where it would be above sea level.

I've also heard that the city is actually sinking, and may have been above sea level at one point in the past. But each year, it sinks a little lower (and the oceans rise a little higher, if you believe Al Gore), so I really think it's inevitable that it will be flooded again. It's just a matter of time, in my opinion.

Every place has some risk of catastrophe

I don't agree with that. I think there are plenty of places in the US that are at little to no risk at all of any kind of natural disaster.

 

[Art G]

I don't agree with that. I think there are plenty of places in the US that are at little to no risk at all of any kind of natural disaster.

Fer' instance?

 

[podey]

How about this one:

Monica Tibbits: Struggling on $40K

"My monthly student loan payments are $1,630 a month. I bring home roughly $2,200 a month from my job. That leaves me $5 short of paying for my incredibly cheap rent of $575 a month. That does not leave any money for food or utilities."


How much could she have borrowed for college? That payment is quite a bit more than my mortgage. She must owe $150k+.

Someone needs to sit the youth of America down and show them that borrowing that much for college to get a degree that only puts you at $40k is a pretty foolish economic choice.

My parents didn't give me much money for college either (my grandpa gave me about $200/month though). I went to the University of Minnesota while I worked about 25 hours a week. It took me 5 years instead of 4, but I graduated without debt.

holy moly. i borrowed $35k and my payments are only $194 a month...

EDIT: Just read her story. Didn't know she had both undergrad and grad debt. Still who on earth would take on all that debt?? I went to undergrad, worked for 7 years, THEN went back to grad school when i could afford it. I could have paid the whole tuition from savings but i figured take out 1/3 of the cost in student debt, pay 5%. I also didn't want to have to sell equity holding to finance my education.

 

[kombat]

Fer' instance?

Others have already mentioned Phoenix and Cleveland. I'm sure there are tons of other cities (or entire states) that are virtually risk-free. What about Las Vegas? Detroit? Boston? Chicago? Seattle? What natural disasters threaten any of those cities?

 

[brewer12345]

Others have already mentioned Phoenix and Cleveland. I'm sure there are tons of other cities (or entire states) that are virtually risk-free. What about Las Vegas? Detroit? Boston? Chicago? Seattle? What natural disasters threaten any of those cities?

Phoenix: wildfire risk

Cleveland: Flooding, riots. Its a poor city on the shore of a great lake.

LV: fires, tornados, rampant VD.

Detroit: Riots, fires, snow.

Boston: Major hurricane risk.

Chicago: Fires, flooding (its on the lake), boredom.

Seattle: Big time earthquake risk.

You need to get out more so that the grim reaer can stalk you a bit more effectively.

 

[Calgary_Girl]

Come to Calgary...all we get up here is snow (and not even that much...thanks global warming )

 

[kombat]

Phoenix: wildfire risk

I'm not sure how serious to take your post. I'm looking at a satellite view of Phoenix, and I'm having trouble finding many trees at all. How is "wildfire" a risk for a city in the middle of the desert?

LV: fires, tornados, rampant VD.

Again, it's surrounded by dust and sand. How is it at risk of "fires?" As for tornadoes, apparently Vegas has been "hit" by just 11 tornadoes since 1950. I put "hit" in quotation marks because "No deaths or injuries were reported." The strongest was an F1 (the second-weakest possible).

Texas, on the other hand, has 110 tornadoes per year. That's literally 50,000% more.

That makes Las Vegas extremely low risk for tornadoes. If you live in Las Vegas, you can rest assured you're probably never going to be at risk of getting hit by a tornado. If you live in Los Angeles, on the other hand, you're pretty much guaranteed that someday you'll be affected by an earthquake.

Detroit: Riots, fires, snow.

"Snow"? OK, now you're just reaching. This is getting ridiculous.

All I am saying is that certain locations are at much, much higher risk of certain catastrophes than other areas. Some areas are well-known to be at high risk for particular disasters. People who live there, don't prepare, and then suffer from said disaster, and then act surprised, are idiots.

 

[Abreutime]

What makes a city have an increased risk of fire, extensive wood use? What makes for an increased risk of "riot," and how does that have anything to with natural disaster risk? I think you're exaggerating the risks of natural disasters in an attempt (for unknown reasons) to show that all cities are dangerous. It indisputable that some cities and regions of the country are very low risk with respect to natural disaster damage. See insurance pricing.

 

[brewer12345]

If you cannot imagine how a city in the middle of a desert can be at risk of serious fires, I don't know how to help you.

As for the rest, lets just say that investing in catastrophe reinsurers is a great way to learn about how many insurable disasters with large property damage totals there are out there.

 

[Abreutime]

If you cannot imagine how a city in the middle of a desert can be at risk of serious fires, I don't know how to help you.

As for the rest, lets just say that investing in catastrophe reinsurers is a great way to learn about how many insurable disasters with large property damage totals there are out there.

Are there low risk areas? What cities are low risk, since it seems like you've looked into this?