Insurance often does cover part or all of the losses. What they leave out is that the businesses take the insurance money and either call it a day or move to an area that values businesses and jobs more than the fee fees of criminals.
It's absolutely a vicious cycle in the ghetto. Some areas still haven't recovered from the race riots of the 60's. Partly because they learned their lesson about setting up shop in the hood, and partly because the higher insurance rates make in untenable or at least less profitable to do so. Shit holes like Seattle and Portland will suffer the consequences of their shitty political decisions for a long, long time. The upshot is that the businesses are incentivized operate in areas that actually enforce the law. The problem is partially self correcting at least.
I remember a black conservative who grew up in the ghetto was saying until you want to address the root cause the neighborhoods will always be the same. The city leaders just blame “white supremacy” and you are right. Businesses will leave because I wouldn’t set up shop in an area that could have riots where police are told to stand down.
For something as common as everyday theft businesses might even be better off without insurance and just pay for the losses themselves.
Insurance might be sensible for rare, high-impact events. However, you can't socialize costs if it happens every day to everyone in your area.
Stores not only have to pay for the stolen goods through premiums but also the operating costs and profits of the insurance provider. At that point they might be better off without insurance.
When I think about the trouble caused by mass lootings, even if you don't take into account the rise in premiums and product costs I'm not sure that an insurance payout is enough.
What about the time wasted cleaning up the store? I suppose a smart business owner will put a dollar amount on that and try to get insurance to cover it, but there are surely knock-on effects chained on from the store being closed, related to supply, staff, and the store's long-term competitive position in the neighborhood. What about all the employees who aren't going to work? Are they getting paid-time off? Does insurance pay for that? If the store being closed causes a customer to go to another store instead - and they decide to make that their new preferred store, how is that quantified? Even if you can put a dollar amount on all the time wasted, time is actually more valuable than money most of the time. There are huge opportunity costs lost from a store being trashed and having to be temporarily closed.
What about those people’s jobs? Like even if insurance took care of the theft these people are out of work. Being in the position where you have to work minimum wage usually means you need that money. Also, why is this lib schmuck complaining about shit he voted in? Sad all around
Insurance often does cover part or all of the losses. What they leave out is that the businesses take the insurance money and either call it a day or move to an area that values businesses and jobs more than the fee fees of criminals.
It's absolutely a vicious cycle in the ghetto. Some areas still haven't recovered from the race riots of the 60's. Partly because they learned their lesson about setting up shop in the hood, and partly because the higher insurance rates make in untenable or at least less profitable to do so. Shit holes like Seattle and Portland will suffer the consequences of their shitty political decisions for a long, long time. The upshot is that the businesses are incentivized operate in areas that actually enforce the law. The problem is partially self correcting at least.
I remember a black conservative who grew up in the ghetto was saying until you want to address the root cause the neighborhoods will always be the same. The city leaders just blame “white supremacy” and you are right. Businesses will leave because I wouldn’t set up shop in an area that could have riots where police are told to stand down.
For something as common as everyday theft businesses might even be better off without insurance and just pay for the losses themselves.
Insurance might be sensible for rare, high-impact events. However, you can't socialize costs if it happens every day to everyone in your area.
Stores not only have to pay for the stolen goods through premiums but also the operating costs and profits of the insurance provider. At that point they might be better off without insurance.
Thanks for the payout, now we can afford to move to a non shithole
When I think about the trouble caused by mass lootings, even if you don't take into account the rise in premiums and product costs I'm not sure that an insurance payout is enough.
What about the time wasted cleaning up the store? I suppose a smart business owner will put a dollar amount on that and try to get insurance to cover it, but there are surely knock-on effects chained on from the store being closed, related to supply, staff, and the store's long-term competitive position in the neighborhood. What about all the employees who aren't going to work? Are they getting paid-time off? Does insurance pay for that? If the store being closed causes a customer to go to another store instead - and they decide to make that their new preferred store, how is that quantified? Even if you can put a dollar amount on all the time wasted, time is actually more valuable than money most of the time. There are huge opportunity costs lost from a store being trashed and having to be temporarily closed.
What about those people’s jobs? Like even if insurance took care of the theft these people are out of work. Being in the position where you have to work minimum wage usually means you need that money. Also, why is this lib schmuck complaining about shit he voted in? Sad all around
I hated that response