• WhyDoYouPersist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    Speculating here but I imagine that would indirectly cause much more death than we already see in wildfire situations, due to people potentially staying home trying to abate damage however they can think of.

      • WhyDoYouPersist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Generally they tend toward collecting as much money as possible from people so in that regard, people dying isn’t good for business. But from an ethical standpoint, no, I wouldn’t think so. Do you?

    • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Nah, when the cost of insurance skyrockets, people lose their homes and leave. New buyers come in for a time, but eventually the only buyers are those that can pay cash. They tend to also have the means to leave, if not mitigate the fire risk directly through large scale construction. Same thing is happening in Florida now. Coastal houses that used to be a million dollars, but uninsurable, are being replaced with 5 to 25 million dollar houses that can withstand anything. Or entire neighborhoods get replaced with condos that look like they’re built to withstand anything, but it’s really a scam.

    • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Temporarily. Ultimately if you can’t get houses adequately insured, banks won’t lend money to invest in properties in areas prone to fires. Once they burn, they won’t be rebuilt.