Money solves a lot of problems; when you don't have it, you may forget that it doesn't fix everything. It's a poor substitute when it comes to losses that really matter.
The other angle is, the more you have, the more you have to lose.
> It’s that California’s wildfires have become so frequent, so devastating, that insurance companies are pulling out of entire regions.
It's not just that. CA citizes voted for Prop 103, which capped the rates insurers could charge. Since insurers could no longer charge enough to cover the expected risk, they stopped issuing new policies or left the state altogether. So the state stepped in to provide insurance, and now the cost of building in risky fire zones will be foisted on the tax payers:
If insurance prices were allowed to rise, and homeowners couldn't expect a government bailout, builders/buyers/lenders would be incentivized to build fire resistant housing like this:
Money solves a lot of problems; when you don't have it, you may forget that it doesn't fix everything. It's a poor substitute when it comes to losses that really matter.
The other angle is, the more you have, the more you have to lose.
> It’s that California’s wildfires have become so frequent, so devastating, that insurance companies are pulling out of entire regions.
It's not just that. CA citizes voted for Prop 103, which capped the rates insurers could charge. Since insurers could no longer charge enough to cover the expected risk, they stopped issuing new policies or left the state altogether. So the state stepped in to provide insurance, and now the cost of building in risky fire zones will be foisted on the tax payers:
https://www.uschamber.com/finance/pricing-americans-out-of-the-housing-market
If insurance prices were allowed to rise, and homeowners couldn't expect a government bailout, builders/buyers/lenders would be incentivized to build fire resistant housing like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9E95fUrsAw
They got what they asked for with their votes and campaign contributions.