It’s always funny how these insurance companies can’t pay out claims but spend so much in marketing. They all have boxes for every team, if not branding on the stadium and/or team merchandise.
State Farm is mutual insurance. So it's owned by the policyholders. All that stuff is so that it can get more policyholders so that it can have more uncorrelated risk. That's the theory. Marketing spending is roughly 2-4% of revenue for these firms.
No, That lines up. They pay out a lot. Their loss ratio is like 90%. That means they have to bring in more because there’s another 25% in expenses they’ve got to account for. A lot of your fellow home policyholders were made whole and that has ramifications.
You are not required to pay for home insurance. You can go without.
For cars, as well, you are not required to pay for insurance. You can instead deposit $35k with the DMV.
For real, it's the principle. Besides I'm sure it's not a drop in the bucket. All that money could help real people instead of ensuring I see that ugly fuck Patrick Mahomes everywhere
I went to the college national championship game in New Orleans two years after Katrina and State Farm was a major sponsor and they did not get a warm welcome as they had bailed on many locals.
Advertising is a necessity for insurance companies. They need a constant flow of new customers (cash) to be able to pay out claims. Insurance is basically a legal Ponzi scheme.
Former pricing actuary here and this is mostly untrue. When you go out on a long claim for something like group disability, the insurance company is required by law to estimate (using a methodology prescribed by the state) how much money this claim will cost in the long run. This is called a claim reserve. It gets set aside immediately with a buffer when the claim is filed and the insurance company isn't allowed to spend that money on other things. So even if the insurance company goes belly-up overnight, the cash to pay out those claims is still there.
That's not to say it works perfectly. Predicting claims far into the future is risky, and the industry realized over a decade ago that it had been wildly underpricing long-term care insurance for a while, so some of those claimants got fucked over. But those are the exception rather than the rule.
It is true that the earliest insurance companies were essentially ponzi schemes. Without regulation, insurance could easily be a race to the bottom.
It seems to be more than that.
>In 2023, State Farm had a loss ratio of 89.61% in California — meaning it paid $89.61 in claims for every $100 it took in in premiums. At that rate, it performed worse than the overall California market, which had a loss ratio of 68.25%, according to data from the Department of Insurance.
Someone is going to have to explain this quote to me. 2023 wasn’t even a bad wildfire year in CA, it was very below average and there were no major residential losses. It’s not like 10,000 homes were burned down, there were either none or basically none as far as I can tell. So why did State Farm have such huge losses in 2023? What other major things are happening in CA that caused so many payable claims that they didn’t hedge against?
I'm in the business here in CA and State Farm is losing about $10M a week on regular claims like kitchen fires, burst pipes, roof damage.
So many homes build in the 50's, 60's and 70's that have never been upgraded for electrical, plumbing and have original roofs.
Those claims that were about $10k on average are like $40k plus now if there's asbestos mitigation and mold with raw materials and labor cost astronomical also.
Because of Consumer Watchdog and the DOI, premiums were artificially depressed. Way too many homes with a $1M of more total coverage with premiums under $1000 a year.
It takes many months to do a pricing study, pick new rates, and get them approved by regulators. They would have used several years of claims data; 2023 experience might not have even been included at all, since companies will still be receiving claims for damage that occurred in 2023.
"The house" are other policy holders. You can't pay out more than you collect from the group.
Policy holders in low risk areas in many ways bail out those who choose to live in high risk areas. I as a policyholder lose out when those people get paid out.
[https://www.kcra.com/article/california-insurance-price-policies-climate-change/45253629](https://www.kcra.com/article/california-insurance-price-policies-climate-change/45253629)
Under the rules today, the State has tied the hands of insurance companies, which fucks over people like me that do not live in high risk areas.
>Unlike most states, California tightly restricts how insurance companies can price policies. Companies aren't allowed to factor in current or future risks when deciding how much to charge for an insurance policy. Instead, they can only consider what's happened in the past on a property to set the price.
>
>At a time when climate change is making wildfires, floods and windstorms more common, insurers say that restriction is making it increasingly difficult for them to truly price the risk on properties. It's one reason why, in the past year, seven of California's top insurance companies have paused or restricted new business in the state.
>A recent report from First Street Foundation said about one-quarter of all homes in the nation are underpriced for climate risk in insurance.
>On Thursday, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara's office said the state will write new rules to let insurers look to the future when setting their rates. **But companies will only get to do this if they agree to write more policies for homeowners who live in areas with the most risk — including communities threatened by wildfires.**
They should have to pay more if their risk is higher.
except in california with our shitty laws requiring urban policyholders to subsidize rural ones, the 16 year old old driving a 911 pays the same insurance premium as a granny driving a toyota camry
Yeah, that’s odd. Makes no sense that they’re losing so much money when there haven’t been as many large fires as compared to 2018 and 2020. They’ve mostly been rural and not really threatened any housing infrastructure.
Maybe cars are getting more damaged in the last few years? It’s partially their fault though, since insurance companies seem to have a tendency lately to just total the car for minor-medium amount of damage.
They literally doubled my car insurance with no inciting incident. Couldn't believe my eyes, called to confirm and then told them I'd be switching and to not expect anymore payments from me. I don't believe all the sob-story excuses for the rate increases because I ended up going with another company and got a little less than my old rate. State Farm used to be a great company - I had my auto and homeowner's ins. through them - but they've really gone downhill.
Perhaps they should rethink paying their CEO Tipsord the highest among their peers. In 2022 they paid *one guy* $22M while the company posted a huge loss.
You're talking about millions. The numbers involved are billions. They're losing about **$14 billion** a year: https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/state-farm-reports-monster-loss-for-2023-479471.aspx
Reddit loves to just blame someone. It’s easy to hit up the populist themes of:
* They’re spending too much on exec pay
* They’re spending too much on commercials
Yes, these armchair CEOs on Reddit would all volunteer to get $1 paychecks instead but somehow no one’s hiring these guys.
You are the problem, literally. If people didn't have such a fucked up understanding of the role of a CEO, there would be more people competing for these jobs and the salary wouldn't be so expensive.
Also /u/4dxn has a point: https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/1dq6j1u/state_farm_asks_for_huge_california_rate_increase/land04l/
Its literally the CEO’s job to make sure the company is doing well.
If the company is not doing well, they’re doing poorly at their job.
Accountability is a thing.
No need to pay someone a high salary to run a company poorly.
I know heaps of people who can run a company poorly for much less than 22M/yr
>I know heaps of people who can run a company poorly for much less than 22M/yr
Then nominate them at the next meeting. It's a co-op, they have to run at least one member meeting a year
People on reddit will really be like "you believe in voting for a better candidate? that pales in effectiveness to my strategy, getting rid of the underperformer" and then not get rid of the underperformer
No need to have a replacement lined up before firing someone.
I guarantee those ceos have fired people for underperforming without a replacement lined up. Why should their position be any different.
People on reddit will really be like”its ok if he’s bad at his job, we shouldn’t get rid of him because reasons”
I mean elite schools for their kids and grandchildren aren’t cheap. Then if they go to grad school that’s even more money. On top of that they usually have bigger houses than most which cost more to maintain, then you have cars that take premium gas. Finally their much earned vacations are usually done big because work hard play harder. Once you see this you understand why they need more money.
you do know state farm is a co-op. its mutual insurance. the company is owned by its customers. so the people who think the ceo should be paid a lot is the customers. want to pay mgmt less? than just vote.
If you subtracted out the CEO pay, they would lose almost exactly the same as if they didn't. That's how big their losses are. 0.1% of the loss went to the CEO if you will.
They, and all insurance companies doing business in CA, are or will be doing the same. It’s the only way they can afford to write policies here. This will also happen in other high risk/high cost states, such as Florida, Texas, etc. increased natural disasters are taking their toll.
They can't. Insurance in California was created via Proposition, maneuvering around that is challenging (including legally being prohibited from using forward looking climate modeling), and no politician is going to willingly go yes, we'll support a policy that will raise rates. California's insurance commission just came out with a draft of regulatory changes to try to address that however.
https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/california-oks-predictive-modeling-for-home-insurance-rates-insurify/article_d712fed8-0404-5d94-9eb2-1ab07911affd.html
If you're curious and have an hour to kill, this is a great listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYbSz1MXdFA
Most people have a mortgage, and are required to have insurance. So insurance rates just go up, to prevent it from killing their business as risk goes up.
It's the consumer who has the real interest in lowering risk, not the insurance company.
Because our State refuses to allow insurance companies to properly price policies with current and future risk.
Effectively, urban California again has to subsidize rural California when it comes to homeowners insurance.
they are also heavily subsidized by the federal govt. if you put flood insurance at the actuarial risks, most people in florida and many in the gulf will have to move. my old boss has rebuilt her beach home twice and her premium is still crazy low.
eg imagine how much we would save if fire insurance was subsidized as much as flood insurance.
No. They can pay for more R&D and get better risk assessment data. There’s tons of homes in CA and other states that are safely insurable but they are pulling out of the state because the resolution of their risk data is garbage - they are incapable of making calculated decisions based on individual homes or neighborhoods.
Not sure if you’ve ever applied for insurance in these areas but the risk decision making is completely laughable sometimes. The systems they use are archaic.
They can't get better risk assessment data.
California's insurance scheme was created via a proposition. In that proposition it was not explicitly enumerated that they could use forward looking projections.
The insurance commissioner is trying to make regulatory changes that would allow the insurance companies to do such a thing in exchange for more coverage, that draft was just unveiled last week.
https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/california-oks-predictive-modeling-for-home-insurance-rates-insurify/article_d712fed8-0404-5d94-9eb2-1ab07911affd.html
If you got an hour to kill, great pod on the insurance markets of California and Florida that are struggling to say the least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYbSz1MXdFA
I live in a high risk area in CA. I know all too well how the risk system works. And yes, although I agree it’s garbage, it is still too expensive for insurance to cover. (I DO have coverage currently, but have been cancelled and recovered twice in 8 years. )
Some will argue that we shouldn’t live in a Forrest, well, it’s been populated since 1849!! The issue is more complicated; cost, population, mismanagement of Forrests, greed…it goes on.
As someone else mentioned, the solutions are not popular for politicians, so they’re no help and insurance companies are in the business of making money.
They lost $13 billion in 2022, the longest loss in it's 100 year history.
Then, they lost $14 billion in 2023.
https://www.carriermanagement.com/news/2024/03/01/259296.htm
A 30% increase still puts us well below other states on a per $ dwelling coverage basis.
For example 500k home in Texas is 3-4k/yr. That’s like $1300 in CA.
My SF agent was literally laughing at me while announcing a 40% hike. He said thats how its going to be from here onwards every year. He said that many agents are celebrating as its boom time for them.
I just paid a fat fucking bill and I am like robbed. Its a frikkin bank robbery.
And the money everyone gives to them in auto insurance that never made a claim or raising prices just cause they don’t budget well is all on the consumer.
Tell that to the retreat of their workers I bumped into when I was honeymooning in Maui. According to one of them, they had like 75% of the Four Seasons there locked down
Fuck them
>This week, State Farm General, the company’s California subsidiary, submitted a request to the California Department of Insurance to raise its homeowners insurance rates by an **average of 30% for homeowners, 52% for renters and 36% for condominium owners.**
>
>In 2023, State Farm had a loss ratio of 89.61% in California — meaning it paid $89.61 in claims for every $100 it took in in premiums. At that rate, it performed worse than the overall California market, which had a loss ratio of 68.25%, according to data from the Department of Insurance.
>It was the company’s overall worst performing year in California since 2017, when several massive wildfires sparked tens of billions of dollars worth of insurance claims. That year, State Farm reported a loss ratio of 122.4%, according to department data.
They might let this one California Insurance company fail or they might not let them fail. Either way I don't think that the rates will go down even if a new company decides to step in.
The problem is us.
The problem is how we build our society and structures.
If we weren't here, there wouldn't be these huge wildfires because the trees that we cut down literally protect the forest floor from these wildfires. We had 2 million acres of old growth redwood forests that we simply tore down and used for building.
[Why Protect Redwoods? - Save the Redwoods League](https://www.savetheredwoods.org/redwoods/why-redwoods/)
There is good reason why many older homes are built differently and it is because of old growth redwoods. Those trees live upto 1,000 years and grow upto 380 feet tall. Or as tall as a 37 story building.
The way that those trees now protect the soil below is that they provide HUGE shade to the soil and all plant life below their canopies. When you shade the soil, now anytime there is rainfall, the soil can retain all of that moisture. And it does it with canopy shade and/or decaying organic plant matter. IE mulch.
So in the natural cycle, the old growth redwood forests like [this](https://landscapeplants.oregonstate.edu/sites/plantid7/files/styles/large-800w/public/sese35.jpg?itok=meYyNuJx) protect the soil. Without moisture, the canopy shade, and decaying plant matter (mulch) the redwood forests would DIE. They would dry up.
And dry dirt draw water from EVERYWHERE else. The forests kept their soil moist by shading the forest floor. When it rains, the shade helps to retain soil moisture. When there is a drought, the soil retains its moisture because of the shade above and decaying plant matter. Now water from below ground can be drawn up by the drying dirt above during the drought season.
So when do I get to the problem with us? Well just look at how we build our buildings. We completely clear the land down to bare dirt. And we leave that dirt exposed to the sun so that all living organisms in that dirt dry out.
[construction site](https://www.nps.gov/npgallery/GetAsset/3f8b5f6b-2ac8-478a-bfac-621b28a24a38/proxy/hires)
Then we've built these cookie cutter homes with absolutely no tall trees, further allowing the dirt below to dry out.
[barren land](https://www.desertsun.com/gcdn/presto/2021/06/11/PPAS/7ecc3b48-ecd3-4f38-83a3-b136dd011f98-banning_growth_1.jpg?width=660&height=416&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)
Now the soil is exposed and allowed to dry out. The drying soil above will now draw water in from everywhere else. And without a tree canopy above or mulch/decaying plant matter. All that moisture just evaporates into the air.
And the cycle repeats.
During the rainy season, all of that water is lost because the soil cannot retain that moisture. Its very simple.
The problem is us.
The problem in a rainy season is invasive grasslands that cover the entire state. It rains, non-native grasses grow, go to seed, and brown before the rainy season even ends. this provides significant fuel for fires. Cheat grass can even seed twice a year.
I understand what you're saying, but the problem is multifaceted and complex. Planting redwoods, which require significant water, is an incredibly stupid idea anywhere other than the coast range.
I have a question. Insurance companies are requiring people to cut down vegetation around their homes. I see houses in the Los Gatos mountains that did that and now instead of having the old forest around them they have a big yellow patch of grass. Cutting down forest around these houses is pretty ugly and I am not really sure if it makes a difference if there is actually a fire. It seems like a lose lose situation. Is this assessment correct?
Yes, it's a lose lose. The problem is that if you allowed a nuance approach of reducing fuels in a more conscious and sustainable way, 90% of people would get it wrong. People working 70 hours weeks in tech aren't going to be out there manually removing brush and nurturing mature trees to mimic the impact fire would normally have had on the landscape. So insurance companies and municipalities find it much simpler to just require clear cutting.
He was asking about defensible space around housing in los gates. You can't do prescribed burns in a housing development.
Of course prescribed burns are a solution in an area away from homes.
Every homeowner has to decide on what they can afford and are capable of planting in and around their home.
I can't explain every nuance. But homeowners need to be educated on how to manage their property and how their area in the past was able to resist drought and fire.
It's not easy definitely with balancing the home, neighbors, land use, and what to plant. In addition to how to maintain and grow healthy trees and plants.
It ain't easy. I get that. And insurance isn't able to handle that risk.
I can see it from everyone commenting on here.
It's hard to do what nature does naturally. Seriously hard and expensive.
Irritation is an expense and it has to be constantly maintained. Plants and animals do damage the systems. Trees definitely grow bigger and can encase irrigation. I've seen it with my own eyes.
>It's hard to do what nature does naturally. Seriously hard and expensive.
Amen to that. I have about 5000 square feet in my backyard I'm trying to return to something semi-natural, and I spend a few hours a week working on it, and that's a tiny area.
Buddy, in May 2022 the average temp for Calaveras county was 61.70F, with a low of 47.7 and a high of 76.
One month later, the average temp was 71.4, the low 56, and the high 86.
Prescribed burns happen when fire danger is low. A fire, prescribed/controlled or otherwise, in cooler temperatures will be less devastating.
You will note prescribed burns don’t happen during hot summer months.
https://datacentral.press-citizen.com/weather-data/calaveras-county/06009/2022-06-01/?syear=1895&eyear=2024#summary
The short answer is this:
You can save the house or the tree, but not both.
The bank (usually) owns the house. The insurance company is on the hook for the house. If it comes down to saving trees or saving the house, the insurance company and the bank will say to save the house (the owner will likely also agree.
There are [best practices and guidelines](https://readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/defensible-space/#:~:text=About%20defensible%20space%20zones&text=The%20goal%20is%20to%20start,100%20feet%20around%20your%20home.) to make your home fire safe. In general, houses in the Sierra that had a 100ft defensible perimeter don’t lose their homes when a major fire burns through.
As far as fire goes: the height of the flames is a large part of the issue. For a fire to spare redwoods, it needs to burn low and cool enough to not catch lower limbs on fire, which can ignite the whole tree and create a crown fire.
The problem with houses next to trees is a house is also a fuel source. A fuel source that we do everything we can to ensure it is as dry as possible. We then fill it with any number of combustibles. A house fire can go from zero to a total loss in a matter of minutes. Those flames could be high enough to catch a tree and start a crown fire.
Lastly, there is the issue of combustibility. It’s getting hotter and drier. That means that more things are more readily ignited with even a low temperature fire, increasing the risk of a high temperature blaze that can burn more fuels.
Historically fires burn out the entire understory and spare the trees.
Your house counts as part of that understory.
The sort of one recourse as an option is to build houses out of concrete and fit them with metal roofs to make them as fire proof as possible, but virtually no one is willing or able to spend hundreds of thousands (likely millions) of dollars to tear down their home and start from scratch on a concrete build. Again, because the banks own the debt on these super expensive houses. Which were made expensive via demand. And now have high insurance rates because the value is immense and the risk of total loss is high.
The grass only became invasive because of us. You didn't complete the sentence.
People don't understand that we were the ones hundreds of years ago that tore up this land.
We also forget that those trees millions of years ago are the oil that is now powering our entire civilization.
It's a reason why the desert areas of our planet contain so much oil yet they are so dry and the soil is unable to retain that water.
Yes part of it is the wind but the sun shines just the same on my side of the planet and in their side of their planet. The only difference is the organic plant coverage. And possibly the winds.
But the wind isn't the only reason. And lack of plant coverage can't explain it all. So yes you are correct in that one answer isn't the entire answer. But that's the whole problem. We just want one very simple easy answer.
That's the problem.
I gotcha man. You are just a looking for a fight type of guy. Not really adding or subtracting from any conversation except to downvote and stuff.
The thing about the grass is that is the aftermath of us doing all of that worm beforehand. Digging the entire land up. Leaving it barren.
The only thing that can grow now is grassland. And when that's all we see, the people who don't know or can't see old photos, now only see grasslands.
I'm still trying to figure out what you think you're adding to the conversation other than some general finger wagging and using a lot of words without saying very much.
Anyhow, good luck with all that. Whatever "that" is.
It's just your tone. You started calling planting trees stupid.
It's just the tone that you set. No real problem solving. Just angry and blaming the wrong things.
It's part of our shortsighted ness as people. Then when it's too late after you've cleared the entire land and we turn into a desert, you blame the grass for causing all of our problems.
Sure there's no fire now. But the land is completely empty and just filled with empty hot houses that don't last very long.
>You started calling planting trees stupid.
Noooo, I said planting \*redwoods anywhere other than the \*coastal range stupid. Big difference. That's not "tone", that just a fact. Redwoods are not an end-all be all solution to the climate crisis we're in. Want to plant something? Plant Coast Live Oaks in the Bay Area, as it is their native range and provide larger benefit to the broader ecosystem. Or plant local wildflowers to support insect populations. Wildflowers that, by the way, can be planted in those barren neighborhoods. Hell, xeriscape your yard with rocks and native tuft grasses. It will be cheaper in the long run and more ecologically beneficial
> Then when it's too late
Its not
>cleared the entire land
We haven't
>we turn into a desert
Which is preventable
>you blame the grass for causing all of our problems
Negative, Ghost Rider. I'm stating that the issue with fire is not dry ground evaporating, but the burnable fuel created as a consequence of rain. Which happened naturally with the tuft grasses that used to inhabit this place, but invasives burn more completely due to the grass drying out faster as a consequence of *how it is*. Tuft grasses have deeper roots and stay greener longer.
While I appreciate your "we are the problem", you neglect the fact that humans are a keystone species, a species that disproportionately impacts its environment relative to its footprint, and we can be as much of the solution as you assertion that we are the problem. The entire ecology of what is now California was tended and shaped by indigenous peoples for tens of thousands of years.
The problem goes way, way beyond simply "we cut down trees and now its dry". Were that the case, we would have had ecological collapse long ago in any grassland or prairie, but we haven't.
There are many ways to help.
I'm having a little difficulty parsing this:
>We also forget that those trees millions of years ago are the oil that is now powering our entire civilization.
>
>It's a reason why the desert areas of our planet contain so much oil yet they are so dry and the soil is unable to retain that water.
What is the 'It' in "It's a reason..."? And can you elaborate on what causes and effects you're (possibly) articulating? I'm not looking for the main point of your statement...just this phrase. I.e., are you pointing to some relationship between deserts, the absence of trees, and oil? Sorry if I'm being a bit obtuse; just trying to parse the logic here.
I don't have any evidence of this. It's my own hypothesis.
But if oil is basically a mix of organic matter both live organics and plant base organics, it kind of corelate why some deserts contain so much oil.
Because think of it this way. All those organics had to have gone somewhere. Where else do organics go besides into the ground/earth?
There is obviously some plate tectonics going on. But if you look at any construction site with all of that bare earth dug up, it's not hard to see how that dirt can then dry out and become a desert.
It's just that we water that dirt. And we do it for a good reason during construction.
The dust and the sun.
Instead of attempting to parse what you've said, I'll point you to the section titled "Formation" in the Wikipedia [Petroleum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum) article.
To recap that section in brief: when organic matter such as algae and zooplankton die and settle to the bottom of bodies of water that lack oxygen, and they are buried by lots of sediment, and they are compressed and heated for a period of time (to about the temperature of a cup of coffee), they become petroleum (they also need to migrate from their source rock into a "trap" of some sort -- a dome, or wedge possessing an impermeable cap).
The fact that regions that have oil are desert in the present is not related in any way to this process. It just happens that the regions that have large amounts of oil source rocks are now positioned where Earth's deserts form -- mostly between latitudes 15-30 degrees north and south of the equator. That's not necessarily where those regions were when the oil formed.
The keys to forming oil are organic matter, anoxic environments, and heating (usually by sufficient, but not excessive, depth of burial).
Yea that is an issue because some trees are non native that we plant. And I can definitely say that most homeowners do not know how to properly ensure the health of a good tree.
Trees live in the span of 100 to 5000 years. We definitely can't manage them or that kind of growth.
But something so natural like a tree that can provide shade and prevent moisture from evaporating away? Literally keeps the planet cool and moist?
Oh yeah they fight climate change. However we are the literal ones that cut it down.
Then we completely dry out the soil kill all that good bacteria in the top soils and claim that we are the masters of this land. Forever.
Yeah it's a tough one.
They literally doubled my car insurance with no inciting incident. Couldn't believe my eyes, called to confirm and then told them I'd be switching and to not expect anymore payments from me. Went with another company and got my a little less than my old rate. State Farm used to be a great company - I had my auto and homeowner's ins. through them - but they've really gone downhill.
“While State Farm experienced unfavorable operating results in 2023, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company reported a $3.5 billion increase in net worth and remains financially strong” [source](https://newsroom.statefarm.com/2023-financial-results/)
Even that was investment income instead of underwriting gain. They just got lucky that the market went up.
In their shoes I would absolutely be looking at raising rates or getting out.
It would be a great thing if people living in rural areas payed according to their risk, and insurance companies looked into how well rural areas are managed and regulated in terms of building codes. Also PGE should be considered either the profitable company that they are and held accountable or turned over to the state.
Fuk off shit poster they are racking in the cash total shit post they just want more cash someone like newsom nees to reign in these insurance companies
Folks look at the numbers. 2022 they pull in something like 88 billion and then post an operating loss of (some reports say 6 some reports say 8.) In 2023 they pull in 100 billion in gross income, but then post the same 6 billion operating loss? Sorry, that means someones cooking the books hard.
i'll believe it when they stop being able to afford those crappy commercials
It’s always funny how these insurance companies can’t pay out claims but spend so much in marketing. They all have boxes for every team, if not branding on the stadium and/or team merchandise.
State Farm is mutual insurance. So it's owned by the policyholders. All that stuff is so that it can get more policyholders so that it can have more uncorrelated risk. That's the theory. Marketing spending is roughly 2-4% of revenue for these firms.
This is anecdotal, but they have what’s come out to be more expensive than other options. I check my rates every year or two.
No, That lines up. They pay out a lot. Their loss ratio is like 90%. That means they have to bring in more because there’s another 25% in expenses they’ve got to account for. A lot of your fellow home policyholders were made whole and that has ramifications.
they can lower those expenses by having less commercials though
Not by 15%
They also pay out the best. Cheap insurance = stingy payouts and resistance
For sure.
How much do you think is spent on marketing when payouts are on the order of billions for disasters?
How much money should I spend on my insurance for companies to have these suites and other perks when it’s required for me to pay them by law?
You are not required to pay for home insurance. You can go without. For cars, as well, you are not required to pay for insurance. You can instead deposit $35k with the DMV.
If you have a mortgage your lender will require you to maintain some minimum (mostly fire) insurance.
Right. Not by law, by the market. The law demands nothing.
You're not entitled to a mortgage. That's a contract you're entering into with another party that requires something of you.
Ok? What’s your point?
I should have responded to your previous comment with "Ok? What's your point?"
My point was responding to a different person about it being optional to have home insurance. Are you bored?
For real, it's the principle. Besides I'm sure it's not a drop in the bucket. All that money could help real people instead of ensuring I see that ugly fuck Patrick Mahomes everywhere
I went to the college national championship game in New Orleans two years after Katrina and State Farm was a major sponsor and they did not get a warm welcome as they had bailed on many locals.
As opposed to cutting the marketing budget when you’re struggling with revenue? How are you supposed to increase sales then?
The grown up world is crazy sometimes
Advertising is a necessity for insurance companies. They need a constant flow of new customers (cash) to be able to pay out claims. Insurance is basically a legal Ponzi scheme.
Former pricing actuary here and this is mostly untrue. When you go out on a long claim for something like group disability, the insurance company is required by law to estimate (using a methodology prescribed by the state) how much money this claim will cost in the long run. This is called a claim reserve. It gets set aside immediately with a buffer when the claim is filed and the insurance company isn't allowed to spend that money on other things. So even if the insurance company goes belly-up overnight, the cash to pay out those claims is still there. That's not to say it works perfectly. Predicting claims far into the future is risky, and the industry realized over a decade ago that it had been wildly underpricing long-term care insurance for a while, so some of those claimants got fucked over. But those are the exception rather than the rule. It is true that the earliest insurance companies were essentially ponzi schemes. Without regulation, insurance could easily be a race to the bottom.
That sounds like a Ponzi scheme … with extra steps!
It's like you have no idea what a ponzi scheme is and also don't understand insurance.
Apparently you're correct... insurance comanies can survive without bothering to aquire new customers.
State Farm is killing me. I haven't looked lately, but I'd say my homeowners is double what it was 3 years ago
They still losing money.
Whole towns being wiped off the map in an hour or two probably changes the math considerably.
It seems to be more than that. >In 2023, State Farm had a loss ratio of 89.61% in California — meaning it paid $89.61 in claims for every $100 it took in in premiums. At that rate, it performed worse than the overall California market, which had a loss ratio of 68.25%, according to data from the Department of Insurance.
Someone is going to have to explain this quote to me. 2023 wasn’t even a bad wildfire year in CA, it was very below average and there were no major residential losses. It’s not like 10,000 homes were burned down, there were either none or basically none as far as I can tell. So why did State Farm have such huge losses in 2023? What other major things are happening in CA that caused so many payable claims that they didn’t hedge against?
This is exactly my thought - there hasn’t been anything major going down in a while
It’s been raining like crazy the last 2 years.
I'm in the business here in CA and State Farm is losing about $10M a week on regular claims like kitchen fires, burst pipes, roof damage. So many homes build in the 50's, 60's and 70's that have never been upgraded for electrical, plumbing and have original roofs. Those claims that were about $10k on average are like $40k plus now if there's asbestos mitigation and mold with raw materials and labor cost astronomical also. Because of Consumer Watchdog and the DOI, premiums were artificially depressed. Way too many homes with a $1M of more total coverage with premiums under $1000 a year.
It takes many months to do a pricing study, pick new rates, and get them approved by regulators. They would have used several years of claims data; 2023 experience might not have even been included at all, since companies will still be receiving claims for damage that occurred in 2023.
These rates aren't set based off of the losses over the previous year.
Costs have skyrocketed. Labor, materials, etc.
cars break ins. teslas getting bumped by shopping carts. people forgetting how to drive...
"¡The house isn't supposed to lose at roulette wheel!"
"The house" are other policy holders. You can't pay out more than you collect from the group. Policy holders in low risk areas in many ways bail out those who choose to live in high risk areas. I as a policyholder lose out when those people get paid out. [https://www.kcra.com/article/california-insurance-price-policies-climate-change/45253629](https://www.kcra.com/article/california-insurance-price-policies-climate-change/45253629) Under the rules today, the State has tied the hands of insurance companies, which fucks over people like me that do not live in high risk areas. >Unlike most states, California tightly restricts how insurance companies can price policies. Companies aren't allowed to factor in current or future risks when deciding how much to charge for an insurance policy. Instead, they can only consider what's happened in the past on a property to set the price. > >At a time when climate change is making wildfires, floods and windstorms more common, insurers say that restriction is making it increasingly difficult for them to truly price the risk on properties. It's one reason why, in the past year, seven of California's top insurance companies have paused or restricted new business in the state. >A recent report from First Street Foundation said about one-quarter of all homes in the nation are underpriced for climate risk in insurance. >On Thursday, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara's office said the state will write new rules to let insurers look to the future when setting their rates. **But companies will only get to do this if they agree to write more policies for homeowners who live in areas with the most risk — including communities threatened by wildfires.** They should have to pay more if their risk is higher.
¿It's like that with driving and life insurance right? The risky teenage driver pays more as does great great grams on her death bed.
except in california with our shitty laws requiring urban policyholders to subsidize rural ones, the 16 year old old driving a 911 pays the same insurance premium as a granny driving a toyota camry
Yeah, that’s odd. Makes no sense that they’re losing so much money when there haven’t been as many large fires as compared to 2018 and 2020. They’ve mostly been rural and not really threatened any housing infrastructure. Maybe cars are getting more damaged in the last few years? It’s partially their fault though, since insurance companies seem to have a tendency lately to just total the car for minor-medium amount of damage.
Look at AAA. Or any others.
Looking at AAA is what drove people to State Farm in the first place.
They literally doubled my car insurance with no inciting incident. Couldn't believe my eyes, called to confirm and then told them I'd be switching and to not expect anymore payments from me. I don't believe all the sob-story excuses for the rate increases because I ended up going with another company and got a little less than my old rate. State Farm used to be a great company - I had my auto and homeowner's ins. through them - but they've really gone downhill.
Did your credit take a hit lately?
oh goody, I have SF, can't wait to see how high my bill goes! Wheeeeeeeee!
Guess it's a good time to shop around if they raise the hell out of it
Perhaps they should rethink paying their CEO Tipsord the highest among their peers. In 2022 they paid *one guy* $22M while the company posted a huge loss.
Won't somebody think of the CEOldren!
You're talking about millions. The numbers involved are billions. They're losing about **$14 billion** a year: https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/state-farm-reports-monster-loss-for-2023-479471.aspx
Yep, the lack of perspective in this thread is kinda cringe
Reddit loves to just blame someone. It’s easy to hit up the populist themes of: * They’re spending too much on exec pay * They’re spending too much on commercials Yes, these armchair CEOs on Reddit would all volunteer to get $1 paychecks instead but somehow no one’s hiring these guys.
Logic and reason have no place in an echo echo echo echo
He’s being overpaid at 22M if the company is doing poorly.
You are the problem, literally. If people didn't have such a fucked up understanding of the role of a CEO, there would be more people competing for these jobs and the salary wouldn't be so expensive. Also /u/4dxn has a point: https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/1dq6j1u/state_farm_asks_for_huge_california_rate_increase/land04l/
Its literally the CEO’s job to make sure the company is doing well. If the company is not doing well, they’re doing poorly at their job. Accountability is a thing. No need to pay someone a high salary to run a company poorly. I know heaps of people who can run a company poorly for much less than 22M/yr
>I know heaps of people who can run a company poorly for much less than 22M/yr Then nominate them at the next meeting. It's a co-op, they have to run at least one member meeting a year
Lets start with getting rid of the underperformer.
People on reddit will really be like "you believe in voting for a better candidate? that pales in effectiveness to my strategy, getting rid of the underperformer" and then not get rid of the underperformer
No need to have a replacement lined up before firing someone. I guarantee those ceos have fired people for underperforming without a replacement lined up. Why should their position be any different. People on reddit will really be like”its ok if he’s bad at his job, we shouldn’t get rid of him because reasons”
If the company is doing poorly (and is poorly run) 22M is being overpaid.
tbf $22M is absolute peanuts compared to the amounts these big insurance companies throw around.
What you want to decrease CEO pay? Unthinkable!!! How are they gonna put food on their plates???
I mean elite schools for their kids and grandchildren aren’t cheap. Then if they go to grad school that’s even more money. On top of that they usually have bigger houses than most which cost more to maintain, then you have cars that take premium gas. Finally their much earned vacations are usually done big because work hard play harder. Once you see this you understand why they need more money.
Imagine the cost of insuring their bigger houses!
I agree, and I hate seeing massive payouts to "leaders," but what's the cost of 22m spread across all insured people? It's gotta be nothing.
Not this dumbass argument again
you do know state farm is a co-op. its mutual insurance. the company is owned by its customers. so the people who think the ceo should be paid a lot is the customers. want to pay mgmt less? than just vote.
If you subtracted out the CEO pay, they would lose almost exactly the same as if they didn't. That's how big their losses are. 0.1% of the loss went to the CEO if you will.
Let’s say they paid the CEO zero dollars, how much money would that save a million policy holders? 22 bucks
I could use $22
He's out already
clearly higher salary brings in bigger talent!
A story as old as time
They, and all insurance companies doing business in CA, are or will be doing the same. It’s the only way they can afford to write policies here. This will also happen in other high risk/high cost states, such as Florida, Texas, etc. increased natural disasters are taking their toll.
I'm honestly surprised there isn't an insurance lobby pushing for stronger climate change policies, if it's killing their business.
They can't. Insurance in California was created via Proposition, maneuvering around that is challenging (including legally being prohibited from using forward looking climate modeling), and no politician is going to willingly go yes, we'll support a policy that will raise rates. California's insurance commission just came out with a draft of regulatory changes to try to address that however. https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/california-oks-predictive-modeling-for-home-insurance-rates-insurify/article_d712fed8-0404-5d94-9eb2-1ab07911affd.html If you're curious and have an hour to kill, this is a great listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYbSz1MXdFA
Most people have a mortgage, and are required to have insurance. So insurance rates just go up, to prevent it from killing their business as risk goes up. It's the consumer who has the real interest in lowering risk, not the insurance company.
Because our State refuses to allow insurance companies to properly price policies with current and future risk. Effectively, urban California again has to subsidize rural California when it comes to homeowners insurance.
Florida and Texas are high risk but they have much cheaper labor on the repair/replace side.
True, but the number of instances increasing still eats into established profit margins for insurance companies, and they don’t like that.
I think Florida is gaining on us for number of instances.
they are also heavily subsidized by the federal govt. if you put flood insurance at the actuarial risks, most people in florida and many in the gulf will have to move. my old boss has rebuilt her beach home twice and her premium is still crazy low. eg imagine how much we would save if fire insurance was subsidized as much as flood insurance.
No. They can pay for more R&D and get better risk assessment data. There’s tons of homes in CA and other states that are safely insurable but they are pulling out of the state because the resolution of their risk data is garbage - they are incapable of making calculated decisions based on individual homes or neighborhoods. Not sure if you’ve ever applied for insurance in these areas but the risk decision making is completely laughable sometimes. The systems they use are archaic.
They can't get better risk assessment data. California's insurance scheme was created via a proposition. In that proposition it was not explicitly enumerated that they could use forward looking projections. The insurance commissioner is trying to make regulatory changes that would allow the insurance companies to do such a thing in exchange for more coverage, that draft was just unveiled last week. https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/california-oks-predictive-modeling-for-home-insurance-rates-insurify/article_d712fed8-0404-5d94-9eb2-1ab07911affd.html If you got an hour to kill, great pod on the insurance markets of California and Florida that are struggling to say the least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYbSz1MXdFA
I live in a high risk area in CA. I know all too well how the risk system works. And yes, although I agree it’s garbage, it is still too expensive for insurance to cover. (I DO have coverage currently, but have been cancelled and recovered twice in 8 years. ) Some will argue that we shouldn’t live in a Forrest, well, it’s been populated since 1849!! The issue is more complicated; cost, population, mismanagement of Forrests, greed…it goes on. As someone else mentioned, the solutions are not popular for politicians, so they’re no help and insurance companies are in the business of making money.
Your coverage is subsidized by less risky urban policyholders.
[удалено]
They lost $13 billion in 2022, the longest loss in it's 100 year history. Then, they lost $14 billion in 2023. https://www.carriermanagement.com/news/2024/03/01/259296.htm
But they are good Neighbahs
A 30% increase still puts us well below other states on a per $ dwelling coverage basis. For example 500k home in Texas is 3-4k/yr. That’s like $1300 in CA.
Ask PG&E for the money
My SF agent was literally laughing at me while announcing a 40% hike. He said thats how its going to be from here onwards every year. He said that many agents are celebrating as its boom time for them. I just paid a fat fucking bill and I am like robbed. Its a frikkin bank robbery.
Lol financial distress, just like the rest of us!
And the money everyone gives to them in auto insurance that never made a claim or raising prices just cause they don’t budget well is all on the consumer.
Tell that to the retreat of their workers I bumped into when I was honeymooning in Maui. According to one of them, they had like 75% of the Four Seasons there locked down Fuck them
State Farm too busy sponsoring celebrities (smh).
And hocking money for the Chief’s new stadium
>This week, State Farm General, the company’s California subsidiary, submitted a request to the California Department of Insurance to raise its homeowners insurance rates by an **average of 30% for homeowners, 52% for renters and 36% for condominium owners.** > >In 2023, State Farm had a loss ratio of 89.61% in California — meaning it paid $89.61 in claims for every $100 it took in in premiums. At that rate, it performed worse than the overall California market, which had a loss ratio of 68.25%, according to data from the Department of Insurance. >It was the company’s overall worst performing year in California since 2017, when several massive wildfires sparked tens of billions of dollars worth of insurance claims. That year, State Farm reported a loss ratio of 122.4%, according to department data. They might let this one California Insurance company fail or they might not let them fail. Either way I don't think that the rates will go down even if a new company decides to step in. The problem is us. The problem is how we build our society and structures. If we weren't here, there wouldn't be these huge wildfires because the trees that we cut down literally protect the forest floor from these wildfires. We had 2 million acres of old growth redwood forests that we simply tore down and used for building. [Why Protect Redwoods? - Save the Redwoods League](https://www.savetheredwoods.org/redwoods/why-redwoods/) There is good reason why many older homes are built differently and it is because of old growth redwoods. Those trees live upto 1,000 years and grow upto 380 feet tall. Or as tall as a 37 story building. The way that those trees now protect the soil below is that they provide HUGE shade to the soil and all plant life below their canopies. When you shade the soil, now anytime there is rainfall, the soil can retain all of that moisture. And it does it with canopy shade and/or decaying organic plant matter. IE mulch. So in the natural cycle, the old growth redwood forests like [this](https://landscapeplants.oregonstate.edu/sites/plantid7/files/styles/large-800w/public/sese35.jpg?itok=meYyNuJx) protect the soil. Without moisture, the canopy shade, and decaying plant matter (mulch) the redwood forests would DIE. They would dry up. And dry dirt draw water from EVERYWHERE else. The forests kept their soil moist by shading the forest floor. When it rains, the shade helps to retain soil moisture. When there is a drought, the soil retains its moisture because of the shade above and decaying plant matter. Now water from below ground can be drawn up by the drying dirt above during the drought season. So when do I get to the problem with us? Well just look at how we build our buildings. We completely clear the land down to bare dirt. And we leave that dirt exposed to the sun so that all living organisms in that dirt dry out. [construction site](https://www.nps.gov/npgallery/GetAsset/3f8b5f6b-2ac8-478a-bfac-621b28a24a38/proxy/hires) Then we've built these cookie cutter homes with absolutely no tall trees, further allowing the dirt below to dry out. [barren land](https://www.desertsun.com/gcdn/presto/2021/06/11/PPAS/7ecc3b48-ecd3-4f38-83a3-b136dd011f98-banning_growth_1.jpg?width=660&height=416&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp) Now the soil is exposed and allowed to dry out. The drying soil above will now draw water in from everywhere else. And without a tree canopy above or mulch/decaying plant matter. All that moisture just evaporates into the air. And the cycle repeats. During the rainy season, all of that water is lost because the soil cannot retain that moisture. Its very simple. The problem is us.
The problem in a rainy season is invasive grasslands that cover the entire state. It rains, non-native grasses grow, go to seed, and brown before the rainy season even ends. this provides significant fuel for fires. Cheat grass can even seed twice a year. I understand what you're saying, but the problem is multifaceted and complex. Planting redwoods, which require significant water, is an incredibly stupid idea anywhere other than the coast range.
I have a question. Insurance companies are requiring people to cut down vegetation around their homes. I see houses in the Los Gatos mountains that did that and now instead of having the old forest around them they have a big yellow patch of grass. Cutting down forest around these houses is pretty ugly and I am not really sure if it makes a difference if there is actually a fire. It seems like a lose lose situation. Is this assessment correct?
Yes, it's a lose lose. The problem is that if you allowed a nuance approach of reducing fuels in a more conscious and sustainable way, 90% of people would get it wrong. People working 70 hours weeks in tech aren't going to be out there manually removing brush and nurturing mature trees to mimic the impact fire would normally have had on the landscape. So insurance companies and municipalities find it much simpler to just require clear cutting.
[B-roll - Prescribed Burn - Calaveras (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIOkg2BjIGU) it is not lose lose. the trees can handle the burn.
He was asking about defensible space around housing in los gates. You can't do prescribed burns in a housing development. Of course prescribed burns are a solution in an area away from homes.
Every homeowner has to decide on what they can afford and are capable of planting in and around their home. I can't explain every nuance. But homeowners need to be educated on how to manage their property and how their area in the past was able to resist drought and fire. It's not easy definitely with balancing the home, neighbors, land use, and what to plant. In addition to how to maintain and grow healthy trees and plants. It ain't easy. I get that. And insurance isn't able to handle that risk. I can see it from everyone commenting on here. It's hard to do what nature does naturally. Seriously hard and expensive. Irritation is an expense and it has to be constantly maintained. Plants and animals do damage the systems. Trees definitely grow bigger and can encase irrigation. I've seen it with my own eyes.
>It's hard to do what nature does naturally. Seriously hard and expensive. Amen to that. I have about 5000 square feet in my backyard I'm trying to return to something semi-natural, and I spend a few hours a week working on it, and that's a tiny area.
Buddy, in May 2022 the average temp for Calaveras county was 61.70F, with a low of 47.7 and a high of 76. One month later, the average temp was 71.4, the low 56, and the high 86. Prescribed burns happen when fire danger is low. A fire, prescribed/controlled or otherwise, in cooler temperatures will be less devastating. You will note prescribed burns don’t happen during hot summer months. https://datacentral.press-citizen.com/weather-data/calaveras-county/06009/2022-06-01/?syear=1895&eyear=2024#summary
The short answer is this: You can save the house or the tree, but not both. The bank (usually) owns the house. The insurance company is on the hook for the house. If it comes down to saving trees or saving the house, the insurance company and the bank will say to save the house (the owner will likely also agree. There are [best practices and guidelines](https://readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/defensible-space/#:~:text=About%20defensible%20space%20zones&text=The%20goal%20is%20to%20start,100%20feet%20around%20your%20home.) to make your home fire safe. In general, houses in the Sierra that had a 100ft defensible perimeter don’t lose their homes when a major fire burns through. As far as fire goes: the height of the flames is a large part of the issue. For a fire to spare redwoods, it needs to burn low and cool enough to not catch lower limbs on fire, which can ignite the whole tree and create a crown fire. The problem with houses next to trees is a house is also a fuel source. A fuel source that we do everything we can to ensure it is as dry as possible. We then fill it with any number of combustibles. A house fire can go from zero to a total loss in a matter of minutes. Those flames could be high enough to catch a tree and start a crown fire. Lastly, there is the issue of combustibility. It’s getting hotter and drier. That means that more things are more readily ignited with even a low temperature fire, increasing the risk of a high temperature blaze that can burn more fuels. Historically fires burn out the entire understory and spare the trees. Your house counts as part of that understory. The sort of one recourse as an option is to build houses out of concrete and fit them with metal roofs to make them as fire proof as possible, but virtually no one is willing or able to spend hundreds of thousands (likely millions) of dollars to tear down their home and start from scratch on a concrete build. Again, because the banks own the debt on these super expensive houses. Which were made expensive via demand. And now have high insurance rates because the value is immense and the risk of total loss is high.
just mandate all new construction be made out of fireproof concrete
Honestly, yeah.
the trees can handle the burn. [B-roll - Prescribed Burn - Calaveras (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIOkg2BjIGU)
The grass only became invasive because of us. You didn't complete the sentence. People don't understand that we were the ones hundreds of years ago that tore up this land. We also forget that those trees millions of years ago are the oil that is now powering our entire civilization. It's a reason why the desert areas of our planet contain so much oil yet they are so dry and the soil is unable to retain that water. Yes part of it is the wind but the sun shines just the same on my side of the planet and in their side of their planet. The only difference is the organic plant coverage. And possibly the winds. But the wind isn't the only reason. And lack of plant coverage can't explain it all. So yes you are correct in that one answer isn't the entire answer. But that's the whole problem. We just want one very simple easy answer. That's the problem.
>The grass only became invasive because of us. You didn't complete the sentence. It was implied with the word "invasive".
I gotcha man. You are just a looking for a fight type of guy. Not really adding or subtracting from any conversation except to downvote and stuff. The thing about the grass is that is the aftermath of us doing all of that worm beforehand. Digging the entire land up. Leaving it barren. The only thing that can grow now is grassland. And when that's all we see, the people who don't know or can't see old photos, now only see grasslands.
I'm still trying to figure out what you think you're adding to the conversation other than some general finger wagging and using a lot of words without saying very much. Anyhow, good luck with all that. Whatever "that" is.
It's just your tone. You started calling planting trees stupid. It's just the tone that you set. No real problem solving. Just angry and blaming the wrong things. It's part of our shortsighted ness as people. Then when it's too late after you've cleared the entire land and we turn into a desert, you blame the grass for causing all of our problems. Sure there's no fire now. But the land is completely empty and just filled with empty hot houses that don't last very long.
>You started calling planting trees stupid. Noooo, I said planting \*redwoods anywhere other than the \*coastal range stupid. Big difference. That's not "tone", that just a fact. Redwoods are not an end-all be all solution to the climate crisis we're in. Want to plant something? Plant Coast Live Oaks in the Bay Area, as it is their native range and provide larger benefit to the broader ecosystem. Or plant local wildflowers to support insect populations. Wildflowers that, by the way, can be planted in those barren neighborhoods. Hell, xeriscape your yard with rocks and native tuft grasses. It will be cheaper in the long run and more ecologically beneficial > Then when it's too late Its not >cleared the entire land We haven't >we turn into a desert Which is preventable >you blame the grass for causing all of our problems Negative, Ghost Rider. I'm stating that the issue with fire is not dry ground evaporating, but the burnable fuel created as a consequence of rain. Which happened naturally with the tuft grasses that used to inhabit this place, but invasives burn more completely due to the grass drying out faster as a consequence of *how it is*. Tuft grasses have deeper roots and stay greener longer. While I appreciate your "we are the problem", you neglect the fact that humans are a keystone species, a species that disproportionately impacts its environment relative to its footprint, and we can be as much of the solution as you assertion that we are the problem. The entire ecology of what is now California was tended and shaped by indigenous peoples for tens of thousands of years. The problem goes way, way beyond simply "we cut down trees and now its dry". Were that the case, we would have had ecological collapse long ago in any grassland or prairie, but we haven't. There are many ways to help.
I'm having a little difficulty parsing this: >We also forget that those trees millions of years ago are the oil that is now powering our entire civilization. > >It's a reason why the desert areas of our planet contain so much oil yet they are so dry and the soil is unable to retain that water. What is the 'It' in "It's a reason..."? And can you elaborate on what causes and effects you're (possibly) articulating? I'm not looking for the main point of your statement...just this phrase. I.e., are you pointing to some relationship between deserts, the absence of trees, and oil? Sorry if I'm being a bit obtuse; just trying to parse the logic here.
I don't have any evidence of this. It's my own hypothesis. But if oil is basically a mix of organic matter both live organics and plant base organics, it kind of corelate why some deserts contain so much oil. Because think of it this way. All those organics had to have gone somewhere. Where else do organics go besides into the ground/earth? There is obviously some plate tectonics going on. But if you look at any construction site with all of that bare earth dug up, it's not hard to see how that dirt can then dry out and become a desert. It's just that we water that dirt. And we do it for a good reason during construction. The dust and the sun.
Instead of attempting to parse what you've said, I'll point you to the section titled "Formation" in the Wikipedia [Petroleum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum) article. To recap that section in brief: when organic matter such as algae and zooplankton die and settle to the bottom of bodies of water that lack oxygen, and they are buried by lots of sediment, and they are compressed and heated for a period of time (to about the temperature of a cup of coffee), they become petroleum (they also need to migrate from their source rock into a "trap" of some sort -- a dome, or wedge possessing an impermeable cap). The fact that regions that have oil are desert in the present is not related in any way to this process. It just happens that the regions that have large amounts of oil source rocks are now positioned where Earth's deserts form -- mostly between latitudes 15-30 degrees north and south of the equator. That's not necessarily where those regions were when the oil formed. The keys to forming oil are organic matter, anoxic environments, and heating (usually by sufficient, but not excessive, depth of burial).
What’s funny is that people actually believe that having trees close to your home increases the fire risk.
Yea that is an issue because some trees are non native that we plant. And I can definitely say that most homeowners do not know how to properly ensure the health of a good tree. Trees live in the span of 100 to 5000 years. We definitely can't manage them or that kind of growth. But something so natural like a tree that can provide shade and prevent moisture from evaporating away? Literally keeps the planet cool and moist? Oh yeah they fight climate change. However we are the literal ones that cut it down. Then we completely dry out the soil kill all that good bacteria in the top soils and claim that we are the masters of this land. Forever. Yeah it's a tough one.
[удалено]
Idk a good fence installed by good workers can cost that much
They literally doubled my car insurance with no inciting incident. Couldn't believe my eyes, called to confirm and then told them I'd be switching and to not expect anymore payments from me. Went with another company and got my a little less than my old rate. State Farm used to be a great company - I had my auto and homeowner's ins. through them - but they've really gone downhill.
“While State Farm experienced unfavorable operating results in 2023, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company reported a $3.5 billion increase in net worth and remains financially strong” [source](https://newsroom.statefarm.com/2023-financial-results/)
Even that was investment income instead of underwriting gain. They just got lucky that the market went up. In their shoes I would absolutely be looking at raising rates or getting out.
Don't worry, Gavin and Eleni have your backs; just like they do with PG&E.
It would be a great thing if people living in rural areas payed according to their risk, and insurance companies looked into how well rural areas are managed and regulated in terms of building codes. Also PGE should be considered either the profitable company that they are and held accountable or turned over to the state.
Both the federal and state governments exist to extract excess productivity from coastal metros to subsidize everything in rural areas.
Fuk off shit poster they are racking in the cash total shit post they just want more cash someone like newsom nees to reign in these insurance companies
A President Bernie Sanders absolutely would have, but we don't want that, I guess.
Folks look at the numbers. 2022 they pull in something like 88 billion and then post an operating loss of (some reports say 6 some reports say 8.) In 2023 they pull in 100 billion in gross income, but then post the same 6 billion operating loss? Sorry, that means someones cooking the books hard.
then go to another insurer. its not like theres huge barriers to entry for insurance. dont like a business' greed, then dont be their customer.
I use a different insurer. That still doesn't make corruption and gaming the tax system okay.
Lol you do know state farm is a mutual. It's a co op. The customers are fleecing themselves?