Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ tptacek 3 months ago

You can; it's just expensive.

▲TheOtherHobbes 3 months ago | parent [-]

So is living on the sea bed. It's irrationally expensive and inconvenient, which is why we don't do it.

Living in areas in constant danger of flooding and/or burning and/or storm wind damage and/or drought seems like quite an eccentrically inconvenient lifestyle flex.

Unless you like disaster movies.

▲achierius 3 months ago | parent [-]

Where are you suggesting we live then? Most all of the US is at "constant" risk for at least one kind of disaster in your list or another.

▲colechristensen 3 months ago | parent [-]

Far enough inland that the rising sea levels will keep you 50 miles away from the coast for the next century anywhere east of a north-south line that runs through the middle of Kansas. These are places where it rains so you have local water supply and you don’t have a yearly wildfire season and the risk of hurricane destruction is far lower. Also just not in the floodplain of a local river.

This is like half of the country.

▲JKCalhoun 3 months ago | parent [-]

I can tell you home insurance is climbing in the Midwest from storms (roofs are apparently expensive to replace/service). I pay more in Nebraska than I did in California (although to be fair, I did not buy earthquake insurance in CA).