So thieves broke into your storage unit again(oldvcr.blogspot.com)
oldvcr.blogspot.com
So thieves broke into your storage unit again
http://oldvcr.blogspot.com/2024/10/so-thieves-broke-into-your-storage-unit.html
314 comments
I think there are three use cases:
1. You are temporarily moving to a place outside your local area, or to a much smaller place. I was moving around for a year and a half, so I left my furniture and non-valuables in a storage unit until I would be settled again.
2. You live in a small unit in a big city. $100-$150 for an extra 50 square feet a month might be cheaper than the equivalent space and is a great choice for occasionally used items. if it's 4 dollars a square foot for living space or 2 dollars a square foot for storage space, that's a deal.
3. Short term holding: You're moving out of your rental in July, in AirBnbs until September when you've closed on your house.
If you're in a suburban house and don't have enough space, that's a bad reason to have a storage unit.
1. You are temporarily moving to a place outside your local area, or to a much smaller place. I was moving around for a year and a half, so I left my furniture and non-valuables in a storage unit until I would be settled again.
2. You live in a small unit in a big city. $100-$150 for an extra 50 square feet a month might be cheaper than the equivalent space and is a great choice for occasionally used items. if it's 4 dollars a square foot for living space or 2 dollars a square foot for storage space, that's a deal.
3. Short term holding: You're moving out of your rental in July, in AirBnbs until September when you've closed on your house.
If you're in a suburban house and don't have enough space, that's a bad reason to have a storage unit.
4. You are a hoarder and have run out of room at home (I knew a hoarder with multiple storage units for this exact reason).
5. You are trying to hide things from your spouse.
5. You are trying to hide things from your spouse.
6. You're homeless, and have a place to sleep, but not for your stuff. Maybe you have bad credit, an eviction record, whatever. A small amount of cash income is enough to pay the rent on the storage unit.
7. You're storing the tools / materials for a small business.
7. You're storing the tools / materials for a small business.
I've used them in situation 1, my lease was up in current city and I had a new place in the new city so needed to move but the new job was paying for the move but it wasn't organized yet. I just put everything in storage and left the key with a friend.
For situation 3 I was able to leave stuff with family but I would have paid for storage again. I lived in a few furnished places for a year.
I plan to use it again for situation 2 when my free storage situation ends. My place is tiny and I can just store something in the facility next to my office for cheaper.
They have their place. The argument that people pay more to store something then the value probably applies to all the junk in people's homes/garages. Must be billions in real estate in the bay area storing old junk.
For situation 3 I was able to leave stuff with family but I would have paid for storage again. I lived in a few furnished places for a year.
I plan to use it again for situation 2 when my free storage situation ends. My place is tiny and I can just store something in the facility next to my office for cheaper.
They have their place. The argument that people pay more to store something then the value probably applies to all the junk in people's homes/garages. Must be billions in real estate in the bay area storing old junk.
I could also see seasonal storage for things that you might not want to leave outside for 1-2 months a year.
I worked with a startup in Seattle that was essentially this. Store your skis/kayak/whatever for a flat fee a month depending on the item. They did door to door delivery/drop off as well.
Pretty sure it’s out of business now. They were owned by a big local storage unit company looking for a new market.
Pretty sure it’s out of business now. They were owned by a big local storage unit company looking for a new market.
I was driving in the burbs yesterday and saw a giant skeleton… like 13’ tall and the skull being 2’ wide. I said to my friend “where do they store that stuff? I’m guessing their Christmas lawn stuff is just as extreme.”
a lot of people love their holiday decor. Not how much resale you can get on a giant skeleton, but it’s not an easy lift. Seems like a good use case for storage… a few thousand a year to make you happy thinking you’re bringing holiday cheer to neighbors and kids.
a lot of people love their holiday decor. Not how much resale you can get on a giant skeleton, but it’s not an easy lift. Seems like a good use case for storage… a few thousand a year to make you happy thinking you’re bringing holiday cheer to neighbors and kids.
These giant skeletons have become sort of common out in my rural area. I had assumed you could break them down easily into manageable pieces but since half of them seem to end up left out year round I think the answer to "where do they store that stuff?" is nowhere!
At least one house the owner seems to dress the skeleton up with current holiday attire and decorations which is an amusing solution.
At least one house the owner seems to dress the skeleton up with current holiday attire and decorations which is an amusing solution.
That stuff can easily fit in the attic of most suburban houses I've lived in.
Lots of Burningman groups and theme camps pay for storage for the 50 weeks a year their camp stuff isn't needed.
For #3 the interstate moving company held our stuff. (We were in an AirBnB for about a month while looking for a house.)
4. Liveaboard who wants to keep some stuff on land just in case a boat sinks.
Wow, that's a somewhat rare edge case. Let me see if I can beat that (hold my beer): 5. Astronauts for Boeing Starliners who are not certain when their return flight will be.
I live in a boating town and there's a whole line of houseboats in one of the marinas, the others have plenty of boats that people seem to be living on board. No property taxes and the marinas always have bath/shower (and sometimes laundry) facilities; portable relatively efficient refrigerators now exist that can be either shore or battery powered, etc.
Undoubtedly, some of these rent storage facilities.
Undoubtedly, some of these rent storage facilities.
Welcome to my world :)
> The paradox is that the monthly cost of a unit will quickly exceed the value of whatever is stored there unless the items have sentimental value or are very expensive.
This is a tough one to manage psychologically, although it’s almost certainly also true of nearly anything you are storing in your own home. The difference of course is that home space is bundled inflexibly—you usually don’t have the option of paying 2% less for 2% less space.
This is a tough one to manage psychologically, although it’s almost certainly also true of nearly anything you are storing in your own home. The difference of course is that home space is bundled inflexibly—you usually don’t have the option of paying 2% less for 2% less space.
That's why it isn't true of your home. The cost of storing an item in your home (assuming you didn't buy a bigger house just to store the thing) is 0.
Not actually zero. Closets stuffed full of stuff means more time wasted trying to find what you need and more time spent finding a place to store a new item.
My point was that you could try to think of your storage unit as if the size and monthly cost of your home was more flexible, i.e. you can just pay 2% per month for 2% more space.
When you chose your house there were presumably several options with different amounts of storage space at different price points. You could just treat the addition of a storage unit as increased granularity between those housing options.
When you chose your house there were presumably several options with different amounts of storage space at different price points. You could just treat the addition of a storage unit as increased granularity between those housing options.
Storage space is really just tacked proportional to bedrooms, for the most part. My house has what feels like a bunch of extra space because I wanted enough bedrooms for my family. They didn't need to come with so much extra, that's just how they build homes with more than a few bedrooms now.
But you could downsize if you didn't store so much useless junk! I'm guessing billions in Bay area real estate is storing junk.
The stuff I use every day (work/entertainment electronics, cooking stuff, some furniture, and clothes) can fit into a small-ish apartment easily-enough.
But the stuff I use occasionally (like camping gear and car-fixing/woodworking tools) would not fit also into that same apartment, nor would my collection of hobby-related stuff like my (small, but non-zero) collection of vintage audio and computer gear.
I mean: I'm not hoarding MicroSD cards here. I, like many others, have things that take up space.
In order to keep these seldom-used things out of the way while maintaining the hope of having a tidy, presentable home, I need a place with a garage or a basement or an extra bedroom -- or a storage facility. Those things all tend to cost extra.
But the stuff I use occasionally (like camping gear and car-fixing/woodworking tools) would not fit also into that same apartment, nor would my collection of hobby-related stuff like my (small, but non-zero) collection of vintage audio and computer gear.
I mean: I'm not hoarding MicroSD cards here. I, like many others, have things that take up space.
In order to keep these seldom-used things out of the way while maintaining the hope of having a tidy, presentable home, I need a place with a garage or a basement or an extra bedroom -- or a storage facility. Those things all tend to cost extra.
We call thrift stores "offsite storage" because it's almost always cheaper to buy a thing like a keyboard or furniture, use it until it gets in the way, then just return it until we find we need it again.
Sometime the storage places are not what they seem. Some are really about doing something with the land until its value goes up, hoping some developer will buy it the future. That is, it just has to be a low effort to pay for some management and property taxes, while waiting for the value to go up. They won't bend backward to "satisfy" customers, so speak.
> The paradox is that the monthly cost of a unit will quickly exceed the value of whatever is stored there unless the items have sentimental value or are very expensive.
Sometimes, the best place to store something... is the store.
Sometimes, the best place to store something... is the store.
My ex-wife demanded that we store some awful, terrible wicker furniture after a house move, so I put these cheap monstrosities into a $40/month storage unit in a semi-desolate area of town. The unit was broken into three or four times but the thieves didn't do me the favor of actually stealing anything. On the last break in I contemplated just leaving them a note with $20 inside pleading with them to just take the damned things.
Your post reminded me of Mark Twain’s very funny short story “The McWilliamses And The Burglar Alarm”:
https://americanliterature.com/author/mark-twain/short-story...
https://americanliterature.com/author/mark-twain/short-story...
[deleted]
I’m stunned by the idea of making the pawn shop whole.
As I understand UK law, if you buy stolen goods, the original owner can just claim it back and you take the loss - simply to discourage buying with knowledge it was stolen.
I guess the pawn shop would go out of business but it does seem if you let them act as a fence you are solving for the wrong problem
As I understand UK law, if you buy stolen goods, the original owner can just claim it back and you take the loss - simply to discourage buying with knowledge it was stolen.
I guess the pawn shop would go out of business but it does seem if you let them act as a fence you are solving for the wrong problem
Often there is a fairly large delta between what they pay and what the sell for, I always assumed part of that premium was absorbing some risk the item was stolen and would have to be returned. Under this system, why not buy stolen goods and try your luck?
"Oh hello guy who looks like he sleeps rough, I would love to buy your thousands of dollars worth of power tools that you can't even tell me what they are for pennies on the dollar."
"Oh hello guy who looks like he sleeps rough, I would love to buy your thousands of dollars worth of power tools that you can't even tell me what they are for pennies on the dollar."
They're likely trying to prevent the situation where the pawn shops become entirely uncooperative, but there's still a tragedy of the commons situation occurring.
This is a periodic public service announcement that there is not, and never has been "a tragedy of the commons situation". Even the author of the concept, Garret Hardin, has acknowledged that he made mistakes in his understanding and research.
Resources held in common have historically been subject to significant control via social, civic and legalistic processes. What is typically referred to as "a tragedy of the commons situation" never turns out to be what Hardin originally suggested - individuals taking advantage of the lack of controls. Instead it is invariably individuals who first dismantle the control systems in place in order to pursue their own selfish ends.
This matters because the "tragedy of the commons" concept has been used to suggest (successfully) that communities cannot manage commonly held resources, which is false. What is true is that communities frequently cannot manage a sustained attack by selfishness and greed against their own systems of management, and that's a very, very different problem.
Resources held in common have historically been subject to significant control via social, civic and legalistic processes. What is typically referred to as "a tragedy of the commons situation" never turns out to be what Hardin originally suggested - individuals taking advantage of the lack of controls. Instead it is invariably individuals who first dismantle the control systems in place in order to pursue their own selfish ends.
This matters because the "tragedy of the commons" concept has been used to suggest (successfully) that communities cannot manage commonly held resources, which is false. What is true is that communities frequently cannot manage a sustained attack by selfishness and greed against their own systems of management, and that's a very, very different problem.
Can you elaborate?
My understanding is that overfishing and climate change are prime and valid examples of the tragedy of the commons.
You seem to be claiming that the problem is with systems of management, but the entire point of the tragedy of the commons is that it happens when there isn't management. Which is abundantly the case at the global level of international waters and a shared atmosphere, because there is no such thing as a world government, nor do most people want one.
So how exactly has there "never... been a tragedy of the commons"? How are overfishing and CO2 not exactly tragedies of the commons? What other principle explains why they weren't solved decades ago?
My understanding is that overfishing and climate change are prime and valid examples of the tragedy of the commons.
You seem to be claiming that the problem is with systems of management, but the entire point of the tragedy of the commons is that it happens when there isn't management. Which is abundantly the case at the global level of international waters and a shared atmosphere, because there is no such thing as a world government, nor do most people want one.
So how exactly has there "never... been a tragedy of the commons"? How are overfishing and CO2 not exactly tragedies of the commons? What other principle explains why they weren't solved decades ago?
If you go and study the actual history of fishing territories, it invariably turns out that they all came/come with complex systems for managing yields. There wasn't ever "a big sea full of fish and anyone could just do whatever they want". For example, if you catch fish with impunity because there is nobody at sea to stop you, you still need to sell them which means interacting the people (in some way) close to where you caught them, and markets have traditionally been one of the points of control.
When so-called tragedies of the commons occur, it is invariably because someone has first attacked those systems of control to further their own ends. In the case of fishing, most traditional fishing communities and systems have objected to the arrival of industrial scale fishing, but they have been ignored and sidelined because of the interests of the owners of those new systems. So the problem is not that people/communities cannot manage resources held in common, it is that they cannot effectively resist power, wealth and greed if and when it arrives. But that very inability is also contingent on broader political and economic conditions, and is not inherent to the fact that the resources are held in common.
Climate change may well be the first true example of Hardin's original concept of "tragedy of the commons". It has a number of properties that traditional resource "extraction" behaviors do not share (including the invisibility of the problem until it is too late). But when people talk about "tragedy of the commons", they are typically referring to much smaller scale situations than the one(s) that have led us to where we are with climate change.
There's also a case to be made, given the remarkably early understanding of the consequences of fossil fuel utilization and the documented behavior of the companies involved, that climate change is precisely the type of failure I'm describing rather than the one Hardin did. We have systems of control for the things fossil fuel has negatively impacted, but people who became very, very, very, very rich from their use actively subverted and captured them for their own purposes.
I acknowledge that the shift is subtle: from the problem being "humans cannot manage resources held in common" to "human systems for managing resources held in common are frequently not robust enough to withstand selfishness and greed". Nevertheless, I think it is an important one.
When so-called tragedies of the commons occur, it is invariably because someone has first attacked those systems of control to further their own ends. In the case of fishing, most traditional fishing communities and systems have objected to the arrival of industrial scale fishing, but they have been ignored and sidelined because of the interests of the owners of those new systems. So the problem is not that people/communities cannot manage resources held in common, it is that they cannot effectively resist power, wealth and greed if and when it arrives. But that very inability is also contingent on broader political and economic conditions, and is not inherent to the fact that the resources are held in common.
Climate change may well be the first true example of Hardin's original concept of "tragedy of the commons". It has a number of properties that traditional resource "extraction" behaviors do not share (including the invisibility of the problem until it is too late). But when people talk about "tragedy of the commons", they are typically referring to much smaller scale situations than the one(s) that have led us to where we are with climate change.
There's also a case to be made, given the remarkably early understanding of the consequences of fossil fuel utilization and the documented behavior of the companies involved, that climate change is precisely the type of failure I'm describing rather than the one Hardin did. We have systems of control for the things fossil fuel has negatively impacted, but people who became very, very, very, very rich from their use actively subverted and captured them for their own purposes.
I acknowledge that the shift is subtle: from the problem being "humans cannot manage resources held in common" to "human systems for managing resources held in common are frequently not robust enough to withstand selfishness and greed". Nevertheless, I think it is an important one.
I guess I don't understand your motive in what you call a "subtle shift" of trying to redefine away the concept of the tragedy of the commons.
You say 'There wasn't ever "a big sea full of fish and anyone could just do whatever they want".' But to the contrary, that's basically always been the case. Fishing boats were limited by technology and the size of their local markets, but once those limitations disappeared because of inevitable technological progress, then that's exactly what happened. And we see this happening especially with Chinese overfishing today.
You're claiming that supposed "systems of control" existed in the first place and then were attacked, but that seems entirely counterfactual to me. There was no system of control for a problem that technological progress hadn't created yet -- humans don't see that far enough into the future. And if four countries that border a sea want to limit fishing but a fifth one says I'm going to overfish as much as I want, well then what do you think is going to happen?
I don't see what benefit there is in attacking the concept of tragedy of the commons. It's not some kind of fatalistic viewpoint of what must happen (which you seem to be claiming -- "that people/communities cannot manage resources held in common"), but rather a warning of what will happen when resources aren't properly managed. Claiming the tragedy doesn't exist seems like it would only benefit the people who want to to exploit our shared resources. By recognizing its validity, we can do our best to create and improve systems of management (especially international systems) to prevent the tragedies from occurring.
You say 'There wasn't ever "a big sea full of fish and anyone could just do whatever they want".' But to the contrary, that's basically always been the case. Fishing boats were limited by technology and the size of their local markets, but once those limitations disappeared because of inevitable technological progress, then that's exactly what happened. And we see this happening especially with Chinese overfishing today.
You're claiming that supposed "systems of control" existed in the first place and then were attacked, but that seems entirely counterfactual to me. There was no system of control for a problem that technological progress hadn't created yet -- humans don't see that far enough into the future. And if four countries that border a sea want to limit fishing but a fifth one says I'm going to overfish as much as I want, well then what do you think is going to happen?
I don't see what benefit there is in attacking the concept of tragedy of the commons. It's not some kind of fatalistic viewpoint of what must happen (which you seem to be claiming -- "that people/communities cannot manage resources held in common"), but rather a warning of what will happen when resources aren't properly managed. Claiming the tragedy doesn't exist seems like it would only benefit the people who want to to exploit our shared resources. By recognizing its validity, we can do our best to create and improve systems of management (especially international systems) to prevent the tragedies from occurring.
Your take on "toc" is a relatively new one. When Hardin first wrote about it, the message was (and was for some decades after it) that holding resources in common is doomed to failure and that is why private ownership/control of them is a good idea.
Even with your view, there's a subtle shift involved in talking about it as an issue of whether or not resources are properly managed or not, because the question is, quite directly, what is the best way of ensuring that this happens?
TOC has been routinely used over the last half-century of so to justify the answer to that being "privately owned", and reasonably given the name Hardin came up with: it's a tragedy of the commons, implicitly not affecting privately held resources.
> And if four countries that border a sea want to limit fishing but a fifth one says I'm going to overfish as much as I want, well then what do you think is going to happen
It depends a lot on scale. If country #5 plans to sell the fish to countries #1-4, it won't work (or at least, it may not work). If country #5 plans to eat all the fish it catches and has no effective internal population that will be able to gain control over its fishing behavior, then ... tragedy.
But notice the key point here: it's not as if country #5 is ignorant about the situation. Countries #1-4 will be quite belligerent in their objections to #5's behavior. So the problem here is not that "people just blindly take from a commonly held resource and destroy it". It's the people (in this case, country #5) willfully ignore the social structures in place to protect the fish in order to pursue their own greed and selfishness.
Even with your view, there's a subtle shift involved in talking about it as an issue of whether or not resources are properly managed or not, because the question is, quite directly, what is the best way of ensuring that this happens?
TOC has been routinely used over the last half-century of so to justify the answer to that being "privately owned", and reasonably given the name Hardin came up with: it's a tragedy of the commons, implicitly not affecting privately held resources.
> And if four countries that border a sea want to limit fishing but a fifth one says I'm going to overfish as much as I want, well then what do you think is going to happen
It depends a lot on scale. If country #5 plans to sell the fish to countries #1-4, it won't work (or at least, it may not work). If country #5 plans to eat all the fish it catches and has no effective internal population that will be able to gain control over its fishing behavior, then ... tragedy.
But notice the key point here: it's not as if country #5 is ignorant about the situation. Countries #1-4 will be quite belligerent in their objections to #5's behavior. So the problem here is not that "people just blindly take from a commonly held resource and destroy it". It's the people (in this case, country #5) willfully ignore the social structures in place to protect the fish in order to pursue their own greed and selfishness.
> Your take on "toc" is a relatively new one.
I don't think so. I'm just regurgitating what I learned in political science classes decades ago, and what the mainstream understanding still is today in the general media.
And what you're omitting is that while yes, the solution from the point of view of the political right is privatization, the solution from the point of view of the political left has always been more active government management/regulation, international treaties, etc.
You seem to be ignoring the entire history of solutions on the left, and treating the problem as if it's solely an invention of the right. I don't know why.
And with the fishing example, I never suggested country #5 was ignorant, or that countries #1-4 wouldn't object. I never used the word "blindly". But you're claiming that people in country #5 are "willfully ignoring the social structures in place" and that's false. There are no structures and never were. (Again, see: Chinese overfishing.) And you're admitting "then... tragedy" in my very example.
So I still don't understand why you're claiming ToC doesn't exist, except that you think it's a justification for privatization. But you're ignoring it's also a justification for regulation and cooperation. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater?
I don't think so. I'm just regurgitating what I learned in political science classes decades ago, and what the mainstream understanding still is today in the general media.
And what you're omitting is that while yes, the solution from the point of view of the political right is privatization, the solution from the point of view of the political left has always been more active government management/regulation, international treaties, etc.
You seem to be ignoring the entire history of solutions on the left, and treating the problem as if it's solely an invention of the right. I don't know why.
And with the fishing example, I never suggested country #5 was ignorant, or that countries #1-4 wouldn't object. I never used the word "blindly". But you're claiming that people in country #5 are "willfully ignoring the social structures in place" and that's false. There are no structures and never were. (Again, see: Chinese overfishing.) And you're admitting "then... tragedy" in my very example.
So I still don't understand why you're claiming ToC doesn't exist, except that you think it's a justification for privatization. But you're ignoring it's also a justification for regulation and cooperation. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater?
What you're omitting is that the solutions to ToC style problems already existed throughout time and space until they were ignored/destroyed/captured by selfishness and greed.
Think about it: if I set you the challenge of "come up with a regulation model for this fishery" the nature of your solutions will be fundamentally different than if I set you the challenge of "prevent selfishness and greed from overriding the cultural, social and historical patterns for this resource use". Depending on your own particular political outlook, it is possible that given the first problem you would still focus more on the type of problem described in the second but that's not inevitable at all.
> There are no structures and never were.
Chinese overfishing ... when I look this up, the most common word associated with it is "illegal". Perhaps you mean the overfishing they carried out in their own waters before increasing (and now decreasing) the size of their distant fishing fleet(s).
> But you're claiming that people in country #5 are "willfully ignoring the social structures in place" and that's false.
In reading up a bit more about this (with China being country #5), I come across articles with titles like "China’s IUU Fishing Fleet: ariah of the World’s Oceans". So I don't think it's false at all.
> But you're ignoring it's also a justification for regulation and cooperation.
That's not an unfair point, but what I'm really getting at (mostly based on Ostrum's work) is that regulation and cooperation have always existed historically, and telling the story of ToC-style problems as if they haven't bends the solutions in ways that do not reflect the history.
Think about it: if I set you the challenge of "come up with a regulation model for this fishery" the nature of your solutions will be fundamentally different than if I set you the challenge of "prevent selfishness and greed from overriding the cultural, social and historical patterns for this resource use". Depending on your own particular political outlook, it is possible that given the first problem you would still focus more on the type of problem described in the second but that's not inevitable at all.
> There are no structures and never were.
Chinese overfishing ... when I look this up, the most common word associated with it is "illegal". Perhaps you mean the overfishing they carried out in their own waters before increasing (and now decreasing) the size of their distant fishing fleet(s).
> But you're claiming that people in country #5 are "willfully ignoring the social structures in place" and that's false.
In reading up a bit more about this (with China being country #5), I come across articles with titles like "China’s IUU Fishing Fleet: ariah of the World’s Oceans". So I don't think it's false at all.
> But you're ignoring it's also a justification for regulation and cooperation.
That's not an unfair point, but what I'm really getting at (mostly based on Ostrum's work) is that regulation and cooperation have always existed historically, and telling the story of ToC-style problems as if they haven't bends the solutions in ways that do not reflect the history.
Why do they qualify as ‘solutions’ in the first place, if the ‘solution’ cannot withstand some percentage of people pursuing self interest above all else? (Which has always been the case to varying degrees since the first organized polities arose ~5k to ~10k years ago)
It sounds more like a hodgepodge of brittle norms.
It sounds more like a hodgepodge of brittle norms.
If you (as a culture) manage to successfully run a fishery for 500 years and then someone invents capitalism and yourexisting mechanisms can't withstand the new morality and motives it endorses and encourages ... I am not sure that you've failed.
But there was no deep sea fishery 500 years ago?
So how could any culture on Earth have been ‘successful’ at managing one 500 years ago?
They may have been ‘successful’ in presuming that they could one day manage such in the distant future, but no more than that.
This applies to most things, technological advancement creates new physical realities that must be adapted to…
So how could any culture on Earth have been ‘successful’ at managing one 500 years ago?
They may have been ‘successful’ in presuming that they could one day manage such in the distant future, but no more than that.
This applies to most things, technological advancement creates new physical realities that must be adapted to…
Whaling (especially that done for oil rather than meat) seems to be another example that seems a pretty clear-cut case (IMO).
Or the catching of live tortoises to use as meat on long sea voyages.
Or the catching of live tortoises to use as meat on long sea voyages.
The planet's air and international waters are truly public resources, at least currently. I'm not sure if I would call them a commons.
Speaking of which, Elinor Ostrom's book, Governing the Commons, outlines the conditions for the successful management of a commons. Notably neither private ownership nor governmental control is ideal, the best outcomes are by cooperative organizations where those with a direct stake in the commons are the managers.
Speaking of which, Elinor Ostrom's book, Governing the Commons, outlines the conditions for the successful management of a commons. Notably neither private ownership nor governmental control is ideal, the best outcomes are by cooperative organizations where those with a direct stake in the commons are the managers.
> I'm not sure if I would call them a commons.
I don't understand why not. That's the literal definition of a commons in the political economy sense -- a public resource everyone can take from freely. (As opposed to a public resource that is managed via licenses, auctions, limits, etc.) On what basis would you not call them a commons, in political economy?
The entire point of the "tragedy of the commons" is the tragedy of overfishing, the tragedy of CO2 levels, because nobody is in charge of managing it.
I don't understand why not. That's the literal definition of a commons in the political economy sense -- a public resource everyone can take from freely. (As opposed to a public resource that is managed via licenses, auctions, limits, etc.) On what basis would you not call them a commons, in political economy?
The entire point of the "tragedy of the commons" is the tragedy of overfishing, the tragedy of CO2 levels, because nobody is in charge of managing it.
> That's the literal definition of a commons in the political economy sense -- a public resource everyone can take from freely.
Part of Ostrom's point is that this sort of commons has rarely, if ever, existed. It's a misunderstanding that Hardin's work created or amplified. Resources held in common are in fact always managed and not "free for the taking".
Part of Ostrom's point is that this sort of commons has rarely, if ever, existed. It's a misunderstanding that Hardin's work created or amplified. Resources held in common are in fact always managed and not "free for the taking".
Well if modern-day climate change and overfishing in international waters fall into these "rare" examples where the concept is true, then the concept certainly seems important enough to me. I mean, it's mathematically true from a game-theory perspective in the first place. I don't see why you'd want to throw it out.
A few days ago, I was watching a video where a man took a walk through a Los Angeles park, which was quite run-down. Most of the comments were complaining about the "junkies" milling about, about how they'd made the place dirty and dangerous. I thought this was peculiar, since everyone (the idea that they were all drug addicts or homeless people was doubtful) seemed to be keeping to themselves. The area WAS trashed, but the overflowing bins suggested to me that the city wasn't putting many resources towards upkeep. Which itself suggested that the order of events was more something like:
>Lax maintenance and poor accessibility (remember, LA) made the park undesirable for families to visit.
>"Undesirables" began frequenting the park, as their chances of being harassed by police at the behest of the families who were no longer visiting was much lower.
So, what is commonly seen as a tragic outcome caused by individuals abusing resources is really a matter of authorities abusing their prerogative to hold or not hold to what could reasonably be considered their responsibilities.
For your examples: there are international laws and agreements that "govern" (maybe more like "suggest") best practices wrt fishing and carbon emissions, based on publicly-available research and inquiry. Further, the entities causing these issues aren't "free radicals"; they're mostly formally-incorporated organizations that are subject to state regulation and their own policies (which, when known by the public through their actions, are subject to public pressure - either wallet diplomacy or the threat of further regulation). It's a choice for the US government to not hold companies accountable, or to not ratify, say, the Kyoto Protocol, or to ignore studies on fishery health in favor of placating the fishing industry. Same for every other country. And every country has some ability to influence others through the shape of their relations. I suppose you could exclude pirates.
Tragedy of the commons assumes that individual actors haven't bound themselves together by some kind of expectation or obligation. The most authoritative version of that is government, of course, but you can have lesser agreements. In those cases, it's not merely a matter of individual entities abusing resources, but of flaunting self-imposed "management."
^This is the most important part of this comment, sorry for taking a while to get to it.
>Lax maintenance and poor accessibility (remember, LA) made the park undesirable for families to visit.
>"Undesirables" began frequenting the park, as their chances of being harassed by police at the behest of the families who were no longer visiting was much lower.
So, what is commonly seen as a tragic outcome caused by individuals abusing resources is really a matter of authorities abusing their prerogative to hold or not hold to what could reasonably be considered their responsibilities.
For your examples: there are international laws and agreements that "govern" (maybe more like "suggest") best practices wrt fishing and carbon emissions, based on publicly-available research and inquiry. Further, the entities causing these issues aren't "free radicals"; they're mostly formally-incorporated organizations that are subject to state regulation and their own policies (which, when known by the public through their actions, are subject to public pressure - either wallet diplomacy or the threat of further regulation). It's a choice for the US government to not hold companies accountable, or to not ratify, say, the Kyoto Protocol, or to ignore studies on fishery health in favor of placating the fishing industry. Same for every other country. And every country has some ability to influence others through the shape of their relations. I suppose you could exclude pirates.
Tragedy of the commons assumes that individual actors haven't bound themselves together by some kind of expectation or obligation. The most authoritative version of that is government, of course, but you can have lesser agreements. In those cases, it's not merely a matter of individual entities abusing resources, but of flaunting self-imposed "management."
^This is the most important part of this comment, sorry for taking a while to get to it.
> This matters because the "tragedy of the commons" concept has been used to suggest (successfully) that communities cannot manage commonly held resources, which is false.
This is not my impression. I’ve always heard “tragedy of the commons” invoked precisely to advocate that commonly held resources must be regulated.
This is not my impression. I’ve always heard “tragedy of the commons” invoked precisely to advocate that commonly held resources must be regulated.
The concept of "toc" is used to claim that you must have regulation otherwise you get a tragedy. The historical reality is that we have almost always had regulation, and tragedies happen anyway because the regulatory process is not robust enough in the face of greed and selfishness.
TOC is used to claim that spaces should be owned. Bureaucrats will only protect a space insofar as it allows them to get their palms greased before leaving office. An owner on the other hand has their incentives aligned with both the space itself and its future.
> An owner on the other hand has their incentives aligned with both the space itself and its future
This is absolutely not reflected in the history of resource extraction in the United States. Time and time again, companies have become owners, begged to be trusted because their interests are "aligned", only to destroy the resource, and frequently the communities around it, and then move on.
The version of game theory you're imagining an owner is playing (unbounded, repeated interactions) is not the version played by the companies that have taken ownership of so many resources on our planet.
This is absolutely not reflected in the history of resource extraction in the United States. Time and time again, companies have become owners, begged to be trusted because their interests are "aligned", only to destroy the resource, and frequently the communities around it, and then move on.
The version of game theory you're imagining an owner is playing (unbounded, repeated interactions) is not the version played by the companies that have taken ownership of so many resources on our planet.
Could you give me three examples of what you're talking about? Are you saying like someone owns a coal mine and destroys the coal because they dug it up and sold it? Or do you mean more like they blew up the mountain to get the coal, to save money, so now the mountainside is less picturesque?
How about Superfund sites, where the owners didn’t just remove valuable resources, but actively added and then left behind hazardous materials which are now the responsibility of the taxpayer?
I'm not sure what can be done when land is worth less than the cost of cleaning it. I'm sure technology will be available in the future that makes it economical. Especially as land grows more scarce.
> I'm not sure what can be done when land is worth less than the cost of cleaning it.
Financial and legal liability for the people responsible.
Financial and legal liability for the people responsible.
What for making a mess on their land? Why does the government care? Probably because the government seized their land after they stopped paying taxes. So you want to punish them for not cleaning up the land that the government seized?
1. the forests. I know most about the ones in the pacific northwest. wherever there has been private ownership (and sometimes where there has not) by a corporate entity, the forest productivity has declined (sometimes to zero)
2. mining. The owners care only about what's in the ground, not what's above it, and so there are repeated cases of them poisoning waterways and the rest of whatever is downstream because they actually have no incentive to preserve the land itself. [ Note: this really covers multiple resource extraction industries, but I'll leave it as just one example for now ]
3. topsoil. Farms across the country have been losing topsoil for more than a century. Despite the long term implications of this being acknowledged by everyone involved, practices to stop it from happening are limited, and generally constrainted to non-corporate, non-vertically-integrated farmers.
2. mining. The owners care only about what's in the ground, not what's above it, and so there are repeated cases of them poisoning waterways and the rest of whatever is downstream because they actually have no incentive to preserve the land itself. [ Note: this really covers multiple resource extraction industries, but I'll leave it as just one example for now ]
3. topsoil. Farms across the country have been losing topsoil for more than a century. Despite the long term implications of this being acknowledged by everyone involved, practices to stop it from happening are limited, and generally constrainted to non-corporate, non-vertically-integrated farmers.
Generally the textbook commons are resources which are not easily divided up into private ownership, like large bodies of water that feed a large number of people via fishing. Of course in some cases new technology can enable privatization of previous commons.
"there is not, and never has been "a tragedy of the commons situation"
I kindly invite you to visit the kitchens of undergraduate house-shares. I think you may soon appreciate there are "tragedy of the commons" situations happening all the time :)
I kindly invite you to visit the kitchens of undergraduate house-shares. I think you may soon appreciate there are "tragedy of the commons" situations happening all the time :)
I saw what that type of community management looks like at Occupy Wall Street. No thank you. Yes, it was people like Bloomberg who were scheming to bus criminals into the park. But if that weakness hadn't existed he would have never been able to exploit it.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of examples of community managed resources throughout time and space that are more long lasting and more positive than Occupy.
Just in the part of the world where I live, but inherited from the Arabic world via Spain, are the acequias of New Mexico. Contrary to US law, they hold water to be a communical resource, and are managed at the community level, typically with an individual elected to be the "majordomo" who make decisions about allocations but is constantly subject to input from and being overridden by the community itself. When acequias "go wrong" (i.e. there are water shortages), it is typically caused by some combination of:
1. an actual water shortage
2. poor decisions on the part of the majordomo
3. someone stealing from the system
What it almost never is: a "tragedy of the commons" as described by Hardin et al.
Just in the part of the world where I live, but inherited from the Arabic world via Spain, are the acequias of New Mexico. Contrary to US law, they hold water to be a communical resource, and are managed at the community level, typically with an individual elected to be the "majordomo" who make decisions about allocations but is constantly subject to input from and being overridden by the community itself. When acequias "go wrong" (i.e. there are water shortages), it is typically caused by some combination of:
1. an actual water shortage
2. poor decisions on the part of the majordomo
3. someone stealing from the system
What it almost never is: a "tragedy of the commons" as described by Hardin et al.
Is that where your drinking water comes from? Only a monster or a foreign invader would poison a drinking well.
The water in this part of the world all comes from the same sources (wells, some surface sources, rain). The problem is not poison, but supply (i.e. overuse).
I could imagine community ownership working in your case. Whoever controls such an important and scarce resource that many people depend upon for survival, whether it be public or private, is going to have their top minds focusing on maximizing its utility and longevity. The governance model probably doesn't matter as much as the virtues of the people doing it.
There's nuance to the laws though.
The pawn shop has to, at 'bare minimum' do the proper paperwork (typically copying ID and taking fingerprints among other things.) The general "way it's supposed to work" is that now the police have a clean lead to the thief or part of the ring; If the shop doesn't follow the procedures, at least where I live, you -don't- have to make them whole and there's a crapton of fines.
That said, it's still a bit of a sham in some ways. In 2011 a former niece absconded with ex-wife's <6 month old Laptop, <1 year old DSLR, Her TV, and the wedding ring [0] just after my ex moved in with her brother at the start of the separation (Ex BIL also had TVs etc taken). It wasn't until their Fourth trip to the pawn shop [1] where the wedding band engraving made it just too hard to pretend the stuff wasn't stolen [2].
[0] - kinda knew that's when it was over, lol.
[1] - Part of a chain that used to have their own show that was a bit of 'Pawn stars crossed with Jerry Springer'
[2] - Ironically this worked out; since the wedding ring was never recovered but gold had gone way up, Renters Insurance covered the pawn shop costs and the added value back from the ring handled the deductible (The rest of the ring amount went to her costs related to the separation.)
The pawn shop has to, at 'bare minimum' do the proper paperwork (typically copying ID and taking fingerprints among other things.) The general "way it's supposed to work" is that now the police have a clean lead to the thief or part of the ring; If the shop doesn't follow the procedures, at least where I live, you -don't- have to make them whole and there's a crapton of fines.
That said, it's still a bit of a sham in some ways. In 2011 a former niece absconded with ex-wife's <6 month old Laptop, <1 year old DSLR, Her TV, and the wedding ring [0] just after my ex moved in with her brother at the start of the separation (Ex BIL also had TVs etc taken). It wasn't until their Fourth trip to the pawn shop [1] where the wedding band engraving made it just too hard to pretend the stuff wasn't stolen [2].
[0] - kinda knew that's when it was over, lol.
[1] - Part of a chain that used to have their own show that was a bit of 'Pawn stars crossed with Jerry Springer'
[2] - Ironically this worked out; since the wedding ring was never recovered but gold had gone way up, Renters Insurance covered the pawn shop costs and the added value back from the ring handled the deductible (The rest of the ring amount went to her costs related to the separation.)
[deleted]
On Brazil if you are caught with stolen goods there's a specific section of the penal code for that and you will could go to jail.
Now, police is severly underfunded in Brazil and enforcement is a joke, but the law is severe, and sometimes some junkyard owner is arrested because of it.
[deleted]
Laws against fraud, like 18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 and others in each state?
Id say your friend being put behind bars would do the trick.
They would just arrest the person who pawned the items.
> I'm not even sure what the notarization step was accomplishing: the inventory sheets aren't affidavits.
The percentage of people who see the word "notarized" alongside "inventory sheet" and simply give up must be quite high. Notarization accomplishes nothing besides causing a headache. Insurance companies don't make money by paying out claims, you know.
The percentage of people who see the word "notarized" alongside "inventory sheet" and simply give up must be quite high. Notarization accomplishes nothing besides causing a headache. Insurance companies don't make money by paying out claims, you know.
Notarization just proves it was you who signed something, it has nothing to do with the contents of the document.
Unfortunately a lot of people think notarization gives some kind of legitimacy to a document, or likely in this case, it's probably not the hassle of getting it notarized, but used as a scare tactic to prevent some people from committing insurance fraud by listing inflated or made-up items (people might conflate it with perjury).
Unfortunately a lot of people think notarization gives some kind of legitimacy to a document, or likely in this case, it's probably not the hassle of getting it notarized, but used as a scare tactic to prevent some people from committing insurance fraud by listing inflated or made-up items (people might conflate it with perjury).
It proves not just who, but when. This can be pretty relevant in a number of situations.
Illinois did away with notarization requirements for almost everything a few years ago. Now you can just sign things under penalty of perjury and it's done, which is the right way to go about it.
That, and it would make it harder to claim mistake/accident if the insurance company tried to
Prosecute for insurance fraud.
The number of cases of people adding random expensive things that would be added to insurance inventories during a claim has to approach 90% if there is no potential for consequences.
The number of cases of people adding random expensive things that would be added to insurance inventories during a claim has to approach 90% if there is no potential for consequences.
It also makes it feel more serious, deterring insurance fraud. Since it has only upsides, no downsides, for the insurance company (except that they'll get bad ratings from customers which they clearly don't care about in this scenario, as most customers don't shop around for them), of course they demand it.
> Insurance companies don't make money by paying out claims, you know.
This is why if you want actual insurance (not "check the 'you must have insurance' box") you don't pick the cheapest company and check reviews, ignoring any reviews that don't mention a claim.
> Insurance companies don't make money by paying out claims, you know.
This is why if you want actual insurance (not "check the 'you must have insurance' box") you don't pick the cheapest company and check reviews, ignoring any reviews that don't mention a claim.
Don’t buy insurance from the same company giving you the service.
Insurance is for you and you should pick it from your own choice of company and you should tailor the policy for your own needs.
Same with financing.
In my case, I get a lot of my insurance from a guy in my town and he has an office that I can walk into if I need help.
Insurance is for you and you should pick it from your own choice of company and you should tailor the policy for your own needs.
Same with financing.
In my case, I get a lot of my insurance from a guy in my town and he has an office that I can walk into if I need help.
How to with rental cars?
I don't own and no local insurers will offer me non-owner insurance. I have to get the crappy expensive insurance at the rental car desk.
I don't own and no local insurers will offer me non-owner insurance. I have to get the crappy expensive insurance at the rental car desk.
When I canceled my insurance after going carless, I was told that there would be a lapse in my coverage causing my rates to increase. So naturally I asked why would I cover a car I no longer own. Apparently, there is a type of insurance that covers you as a driver of other cars. Of course there is. Going on 4.5 years now with no insurance payments. It's been glorious
If you do regularly drive other cars, it can make a lot of sense to make sure you have a liability policy that will cover an incident (vs assuming that the coverage on the vehicles is appropriate for you). Not sure why you'd be bothered/dismissive that you can access a sensible financial product.
It was less about me driving (I don't drive since going carless), but more about here's a way for us to keep you on a monthly payment for a service you no longer need to avoid "lapse in coverage". That's like telling someone they will have a lapse in their homeowner's coverage while they are renting.
> How to with rental cars?
Some credit cards like American Express offer their own insurance as part of the membership fee as long as you pay for the rental with their card, and decline the coverage offered by the rental car company.
Some credit cards like American Express offer their own insurance as part of the membership fee as long as you pay for the rental with their card, and decline the coverage offered by the rental car company.
This is typically (including in the case of AmEx) collision insurance only, not liability insurance. You still need liability insurance from somewhere.
There are companies that will sell you rental car insurance as a standalone policy. Google "Rental Car Insurance". Last I was dealing with this problem myself, the policies were something like half the cost of what the rental car place wanted.
Many credit card companies offer insurance when you rent using them.
There are yearly policies you can get if you just rent cars. GEICO has them for example
[deleted]
I tend to avoid the insurance and just pile up the money I would have paid to cover the losses. Depending on the type of insurance. But theft insurance tends to be problematic. The fraudulent buy expensive stuff, keep all the receipts, sell the stuff for cash to a friend and then claim on insurance with the proper paperwork. Normal people tend not to keep and file away all paperwork and lose out.
Although it’s a little more complicated, generally if you can cover a loss out of pocket, then you don’t need insurance.
Insurance is for losses that will have a major impact on you. It’s putting a price on risk.
Insurance is for losses that will have a major impact on you. It’s putting a price on risk.
Insurers do notice that small claims (in P&C) are a relatively small part of claims + cost so most don’t offer the high deductibles. As a bonus, with higher deductibles come relatively more lawsuits. So safer to only offer low deductibles. (My experience after 20 years in the sector.)
In my country a family perhaps pays about €5k total a year for two cars, health, house and the assortment of legal and liability insurance. That is quite modest (not for all income classes though), since there are catastrophes possible in nearly any avenue of life. A minimalist insurance scheme would save one about €2k/yr. That just isn’t that worthwhile utility wise.
In my country a family perhaps pays about €5k total a year for two cars, health, house and the assortment of legal and liability insurance. That is quite modest (not for all income classes though), since there are catastrophes possible in nearly any avenue of life. A minimalist insurance scheme would save one about €2k/yr. That just isn’t that worthwhile utility wise.
Right. If I accidentally crash my vehicle into someone's property (or worse, someone) I don't want to be out of pocket for potentially 100s of thousands when I could just pay my sub-$100 premium and not worry about it.
> Normal people tend not to keep and file away all paperwork and lose out.
Interestingly some of 'valuable property' insurance I have used for my camera gear encourages you to submit your invoices, photos of the item, etc on your policy profile. Makes it easy to remember to toss a photo of the item, photo showing serial number area, close-up of it, invoice alongside the other info.
Interestingly some of 'valuable property' insurance I have used for my camera gear encourages you to submit your invoices, photos of the item, etc on your policy profile. Makes it easy to remember to toss a photo of the item, photo showing serial number area, close-up of it, invoice alongside the other info.
I used to work security and making rounds in a place like this would give me chills. Running into thieves at 3 in the morning is one of the most terrifying things you will ever experience.
I feel it’s like walking in the woods in the south — you make a lot of noise so you don’t surprise a rattler? Were you walking stealthy so they don’t hear you coming?
How did you deal with such terrifying situations?
I'm not the person you asked, but most people like that - opportunistic burglars, etc - are no more keen to run into the police than you are to run into them. They'll just run.
Granted, the equation changes dramatically when various drugs are involved.
Granted, the equation changes dramatically when various drugs are involved.
Thankfully they always ran away.
Having to pay the fence to get your stuff back is so California. In the more civilized states pawnbrokers are expected to know the risks of buying potentially stolen property, and if they do they get to eat it.
Maybe that's why property crimes short of grand theft aren't really enforced in California?
Maybe that's why property crimes short of grand theft aren't really enforced in California?
That is the most surprising part to me. If the pawnbroker doesn’t bear the risks of buying stolen goods they are not disincentivized from buying stolen goods, which creates a larger market for selling stolen goods which in the end increases the market for property crime.
> property crimes short of grand theft aren't really enforced in California
There is a hope we will undo this soon.
There is a hope we will undo this soon.
Yeah I was surprised about that one ‘Handling stolen goods’ is a criminal offence in Britain and if you can prove ownership of something you get it back. If you’re an innocent intermediary and you bought a stolen item without knowing you have to make a civil claim against the person you bought the item from to get the money back.
Same here. I believe in most U.S. states, knowlingly possessing stolen property is a crime. If you didn't know, you just have to forfiet it to the lawful owner.
What is annoying to me is that in this internet-connected age, the storage units I see still don't have better per-unit security.
Just a phone alert to say "door to unit #xyz has been opened" would be a huge improvement. Wire up a cheap webcam for extra credit.
Just a phone alert to say "door to unit #xyz has been opened" would be a huge improvement. Wire up a cheap webcam for extra credit.
I’m pretty sure most large storage operations (U-Haul, extra space, etc) have per unit door sensors which work in concert with customer check in/out to verify authorized openings.
I have never encountered anything like this at storage units from a wide scale of corporate ownership, different levels of newness, and different levels of affluence in the area. Not saying they don't exist but I've never seen any reasonably priced storage units that bother with this level of tracking.
I'm pretty sure they don't: source I've helped move people's stuff in and out of a couple of different places. My experience is very limited, so if you have more data points where you have seen such things, please share.
https://www.uhaul.com/Tips/Storage/What-Security-Features-Ar...
I can speak for U-Haul specifically because I have used them and a customer can see the sensors in their unit. The sensors are deactivated when a customer checks in.
I can speak for U-Haul specifically because I have used them and a customer can see the sensors in their unit. The sensors are deactivated when a customer checks in.
Thank you.
The local storage operation I use has exactly that. If you do not "badge in" and open a door - the alarm goes off. When the manager was showing me the unit he said "Hey, an alarm is going to go off when I open this door - don't be surprised" and explained the system.
Yup! My local U-Haul has a sign in/out system. In the main office there's a monitor/giant TV that shows a map of the facility, including alerts for all doors currently open and authorized.
https://s3-media0.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/K_IeKTxlLTzLBd4F9Ett...
If I don't sign in, as soon as I try to roll my door up the alarms are going to go off. If I don't sign out after closing the door and leaving, the next time I try to sign in I will be denied entry until I speak to a manager and be yelled at about signing out when I leave.
https://s3-media0.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/K_IeKTxlLTzLBd4F9Ett...
If I don't sign in, as soon as I try to roll my door up the alarms are going to go off. If I don't sign out after closing the door and leaving, the next time I try to sign in I will be denied entry until I speak to a manager and be yelled at about signing out when I leave.
There are a million reasons why you should never do this, but I would be tempted to use storage unit #3 as the place to keep my land mine collection.
Edit: “You have a land mine collection?”
No, but after storage unit #2, I’d daydream about starting one.
Edit: “You have a land mine collection?”
No, but after storage unit #2, I’d daydream about starting one.
I imagine it'd be a lot cheaper and legally-viable to store your collection of electronic burglar alarms. Especially if they dial a human when triggered.
There are some neat videos out there where people make their own with Arduinos etc.
There are some neat videos out there where people make their own with Arduinos etc.
> There are some neat videos out there where people make their own
The "glitter bomb" series is pretty funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxhDk-hwuo&list=PLgeXOVaJo_...
The "glitter bomb" series is pretty funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxhDk-hwuo&list=PLgeXOVaJo_...
Make them play sounds of approaching footsteps and gunfire.
Merry Christmas, ya filthy animals.
How about (accidentally) still charged high voltage capacitors?
Where I live the "accidental" part doesn't really get you off the hook. Negligence is better than intention but still.
If it kills someone or causes grievous bodily harm, it's still on you. Yes, even if it's a burglar. You also have to think about the fully legal situations when it's firefighter or a cop with a warrant. Or an edge case like a stupid kid.
If it kills someone or causes grievous bodily harm, it's still on you. Yes, even if it's a burglar. You also have to think about the fully legal situations when it's firefighter or a cop with a warrant. Or an edge case like a stupid kid.
Where I grew up, problem thieves would just go missing, to be found years later dead at the bottom of a mine shaft.
> If it kills someone or causes grievous bodily harm, it's still on you. Yes, even if it's a burglar.
Honestly, the laws in your locale are unjust and need to be rewritten. There should be absolutely no liability to the owner (or renter) of a property if someone burglarizing it gets hurt accidentally.
Honestly, the laws in your locale are unjust and need to be rewritten. There should be absolutely no liability to the owner (or renter) of a property if someone burglarizing it gets hurt accidentally.
Laws against booby trapping and the like are fairly universal. Even without criminal penalties, the liability if you catch someone innocent should give you pause.
Well it kind of depends on what exactly happened. For example there are building codes, like "no deadly drops without guardrails". If you leave something like this then you are breaking the law. If somebody dies because of this then it's on you, even if they were breaking another law.
I'm not sure how you could rewrite self defense law to cover this case.
I'm not sure how you could rewrite self defense law to cover this case.
Notably though, it’s usually civil law. So someone would have to have standing to sue (typically family). And typically more
of an attractive nuisance type deal.
So it’s of the sort of thing where if someone is in your house, and falls off something and hurts themselves because of something negligent you did or whatever, then yeah they can sue for damages. Regardless of if they had your permission to be there, because you had a duty to not leave something obviously dangerous just lying there.
But it does lead to a lot of weird/unjust situations - either if the law does exist, or if it doesn’t.
So it’s of the sort of thing where if someone is in your house, and falls off something and hurts themselves because of something negligent you did or whatever, then yeah they can sue for damages. Regardless of if they had your permission to be there, because you had a duty to not leave something obviously dangerous just lying there.
But it does lead to a lot of weird/unjust situations - either if the law does exist, or if it doesn’t.
[deleted]
It's a fun fantasy. Work a few more elements into it:
- you're hit by a bus, and your family is clearing out the storage locker.
- management is alerted to a bad smell coming out of several units, and they have to enter yours to verify that you're not accidentally storing dead raccoons.
- the police are serving a warrant on a unit, and accidentally open yours due to a typo.
- a homeless teenager just needs a place to sleep for the night.
- you're hit by a bus, and your family is clearing out the storage locker.
- management is alerted to a bad smell coming out of several units, and they have to enter yours to verify that you're not accidentally storing dead raccoons.
- the police are serving a warrant on a unit, and accidentally open yours due to a typo.
- a homeless teenager just needs a place to sleep for the night.
I’m not sure you grok the concept of “fun fantasy”.
Booby-trapping your property is illegal even in the reddest of red states.
That would be one of the million reasons why I wouldn’t do it.
I didn’t say I’d actually do it. I’d surely daydream of it.
I didn’t say I’d actually do it. I’d surely daydream of it.
id put a bank of ultra bright white LED lights facing the door and a speaker with a recording saying this footage has been sent to a remote location. thank you for closing the door behind you.
In general isn’t the consensus that storage units are a very bad deal for “storage”. It can be useful for temporary storage for bulky items like furniture when renovating your house or in between houses, but the fees would quickly accumulate and pay for almost any reasonable contents.
If the fees wouldn’t cover replacement of the contents within 6 months, they are too valuable to store in a storage unit.
If the fees wouldn’t cover replacement of the contents within 6 months, they are too valuable to store in a storage unit.
If you don't have space in your apartment or home for items you want to keep, then where else are you supposed to store things?
Obviously it's up to you to figure out if it makes financial sense. But for people in urban areas with small apartments, it can be a heckuva lot cheaper than upgrading to an apartment with another bedroom.
Obviously it's up to you to figure out if it makes financial sense. But for people in urban areas with small apartments, it can be a heckuva lot cheaper than upgrading to an apartment with another bedroom.
> If you don't have space in your apartment or home for items you want to keep, then where else are you supposed to store things?
On ebay? Sell the stuff now, buy it again if you need it. Doesn't work for everything, of course, and I don't practice it, I've got tons of space and tons of clutter.
On ebay? Sell the stuff now, buy it again if you need it. Doesn't work for everything, of course, and I don't practice it, I've got tons of space and tons of clutter.
I believe other people are using any such storage as a cache, trading space for time, since even if you instantly found the exact replacements, you'd still pay not only monetarily for shipping but wall-clock for both shipping and the drudgery of searching for said items
Interestingly, I read a blog post where someone was using "fulfilled by amazon" as off-site storage, but I think it was a pseudo thought experiment more than an actual storage solution, similar to those folks who use data-as-video on YouTube as infinite backup storage
Interestingly, I read a blog post where someone was using "fulfilled by amazon" as off-site storage, but I think it was a pseudo thought experiment more than an actual storage solution, similar to those folks who use data-as-video on YouTube as infinite backup storage
So you're going to sell your surfboard and buy new ski equipment every winter, and sell your skis and buy a new surfboard every summer? As well as the rest of your bulky seasonal gear?
Sounds expensive.
Sounds expensive.
Surfboards mounted on the wall are a common decoration, so there is off season storage.
You can rent skis for a season for $400, I suspect most rental places are than $100/month.
But skis especially can usually fit in the back of a closet or under a bed.
Kayak? Get a season pass for the rental place.
You can rent skis for a season for $400, I suspect most rental places are than $100/month.
But skis especially can usually fit in the back of a closet or under a bed.
Kayak? Get a season pass for the rental place.
I think you're ignoring the point that if you want high-quality gear, it's cheaper to buy it outright and store it off-season.
And the kinds of people who live in places where they don't have room to store a surfboard year-round, are the kinds of people who don't have a bunch of wall space for one either.
I think you might not be totally understanding the concept of small urban apartments. Putting skis in the closet or under the bed year-round doesn't work, because your closet and underneath the bed are already full. (And it's not just skis, obviously -- it's boots and poles and helmet and bulky jacket and snowpants and gloves and everything.)
And the kinds of people who live in places where they don't have room to store a surfboard year-round, are the kinds of people who don't have a bunch of wall space for one either.
I think you might not be totally understanding the concept of small urban apartments. Putting skis in the closet or under the bed year-round doesn't work, because your closet and underneath the bed are already full. (And it's not just skis, obviously -- it's boots and poles and helmet and bulky jacket and snowpants and gloves and everything.)
Not to mention the time value of haggling on Ebay, dealing with scammers, etc.
And wasting all that money on shipping and sales tax with each transaction.
Because yes, you have to pay sales tax on eBay, even for used items that already had sales tax paid on their original retail purchase.
Because yes, you have to pay sales tax on eBay, even for used items that already had sales tax paid on their original retail purchase.
You're not using ebay for storage if you buy new replacements every season. It's ebay as storage if you're buying used replacements.
its almost as if people really shouldnt live inside glorified cubicles… as if they should in something larger. and maybe have a space with grass and also a little accessory structure with a door large enough to fit a vehicle. such a thing doesnt exist unfortunately
My nearby park has tons of space with grass.
And why would I want space for a vehicle when I have public transportation that is much faster?
And why would I want space for a vehicle when I have public transportation that is much faster?
smeeger(3)
Please let me introduce you to the insanity of UK house prices...
When I lived in a condo in San Francisco, I had a storage unit for my camping and outdoor gear. The alternatives would have been: a) buy a new tent/cooler/propane stove/etc. every 2-3 months, or b) not go camping regularly. I absolutely did not have room to store a kayak at home, and my neighbors would have been annoyed with me dragging muddy/dusty gear through the communal hallway to my unit.
When I left SF, I spent about 18 months traveling before permanently moving in anywhere. I did the math on "cost per cubic foot to store vs. cost to replace" then, and interestingly, furniture and most housewares didn't make the cut—except for a few sentimental items. An unexpected bonus of instead donating that stuff to Goodwill was that when I moved into my new place, I got to outfit my kitchen with much nicer stuff than what I had previously accumulated.
(Now I live in the Midwest and have a garage for the outdoor gear, which in addition to vehicle storage, also doubles as machine/metalworking/woodworking shops.)
When I left SF, I spent about 18 months traveling before permanently moving in anywhere. I did the math on "cost per cubic foot to store vs. cost to replace" then, and interestingly, furniture and most housewares didn't make the cut—except for a few sentimental items. An unexpected bonus of instead donating that stuff to Goodwill was that when I moved into my new place, I got to outfit my kitchen with much nicer stuff than what I had previously accumulated.
(Now I live in the Midwest and have a garage for the outdoor gear, which in addition to vehicle storage, also doubles as machine/metalworking/woodworking shops.)
True, but it's just another one of those illogical things people do.
You could apply the same logic to the stuff inside your house, which is just a glorified storage unit. Why are you paying premium to store that stuff, when you could downgrade to a studio apartment or a tent?
The bottom line is, if you want to own stuff, then you must store it. You know what is more expensive than storage? Buying stuff you need or want and reselling it, again and again. Or leasing it in general. Some stuff has poor resale value, takes a lot of energy to choose and accumulate, and is not easy to replace.
The bottom line is, if you want to own stuff, then you must store it. You know what is more expensive than storage? Buying stuff you need or want and reselling it, again and again. Or leasing it in general. Some stuff has poor resale value, takes a lot of energy to choose and accumulate, and is not easy to replace.
Well, when you are writing an apartment, people do generally go for the cheapest smallest place they can afford.
But when you’re buying a place, you’re looking to have isolation from shared walls, and generally a larger property will appreciate more in value than a smaller property With some limits in both directions up and down in size.
But when you’re buying a place, you’re looking to have isolation from shared walls, and generally a larger property will appreciate more in value than a smaller property With some limits in both directions up and down in size.
It would be illegal to live in a tent.
Even if it was legal, most people wouldn't like that.
What a story! Most people probably would just give up. Dealing with storage units is why I try to eliminate all the extra "stuff" in my life... George Carlin had a great bit on stuff: https://youtu.be/MvgN5gCuLac
It’s outrageous that pawn shops don’t have to eat the loss in California. They have no incentive to check for stolen items.
Agree. Around here bike theft is a huge problem and none of the pawn shops will deal with bicycles at all, it’s too risky for them.
[deleted]
An acquaintance of mine was stealing big-ticket items from a storage unit. Campers, boats, etc.
Of course he eventually got caught. The insurance company had already paid the owner of one of the campers, so it went to auction, and he bought it. Kind of funny.
Of course he eventually got caught. The insurance company had already paid the owner of one of the campers, so it went to auction, and he bought it. Kind of funny.
The author paid for storage for over 20 years. That is an insane amount of rent paid. I used storage once for about two weeks- $200. Such a waste, but I had no choice at that time. Buy some land, buy a shed. In a few years time it’ll pay for itself.
At this stage I'd probably thank thieves for clearing out my garage.
Last time I cleared out my old stuff there was nothing I could do to get people to take most of the crap at zero cost.
Last time I cleared out my old stuff there was nothing I could do to get people to take most of the crap at zero cost.
This is heartbreaking. The storage facility insurance scam is one that needs to be investigated by the government. It's a tremendous rip off and covers nothing.
Most insurance in most industries is a racket.
The famous Lloyds of London started as a gambling coffee house. Gambling and insurance are closely related, and offer the same bargain: the house always wins.
> the house always wins
Well, until Lloyd’s did lose a lot of money in 1991, and the Names had too much exposure. Berkshire Hathaway cover them now, I believe.
Well, until Lloyd’s did lose a lot of money in 1991, and the Names had too much exposure. Berkshire Hathaway cover them now, I believe.
That's rich.
I wonder if an insurance company operated as a co-op would be a better arrangement. Interested parties pooling money to pay out to the one unfortunate one who has a disaster. Could potentially invest the pool in super low risk investments as well for a little upside.
Mutual insurance companies have been a thing for hundreds of years. Some well known US mutual insurance companies are State Farm, Amica, Mutual of Omaha, and most non Elevance Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliated insurance companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance
he gives a list of things to do or consider. supporting laws and politicians that catch and punish criminals effectively is somehow not on that list…
The items he listed have extremely direct impact on YOUR ability to reduce theft. You just suggested something very broad. I might make the point that punishing criminals effectively will potentially reduce overall crime, but has no direct reduction on the crime in the article. It would be very hard to show any law which specifically targets the type of crime OP posted about, but I'm open if you have seen legislation proposed or enacted which targets this crime in a major city.
Property crime is so far down the list on police priorities. Criminals know this. Soft on crime - even if it's due to lack of resources and is "only" property crime - means more crime.
The only effective way to deal with property crime during or after the fact is with increased surveillance. The success of Meta Ray Bans may make the decision for us, but until then, it's fair to point out that this is, in fact, a conversation about how much freedom we want to give up for security.
It seems more effective and less intrusive to deal with the upstream socioeconomic causes of crime (too much inequality, not enough opportunity, an overemphasis on materiality and consumption, and an underemphasis on community and expression).
It seems more effective and less intrusive to deal with the upstream socioeconomic causes of crime (too much inequality, not enough opportunity, an overemphasis on materiality and consumption, and an underemphasis on community and expression).
How much burglary do you think Kuwait City has?
How many pickpockets?
"increased surveillance" isn't the half of it.
"increased surveillance" isn't the half of it.
What laws do you believe would be more effective a catching and punishing criminals?
AFAIK, there is reasonably clear evidence that deterrence has a very low impact on this sort of crime, so laws based on deterring through fear-of-sentence would not seem to be likely to have much effect.
What is it that you're proposing/desiring?
AFAIK, there is reasonably clear evidence that deterrence has a very low impact on this sort of crime, so laws based on deterring through fear-of-sentence would not seem to be likely to have much effect.
What is it that you're proposing/desiring?
Incapacitation, not deterrence? If someone is in prison, they can't reoffend.
We already have the highest incarceration rates in the developed world - I'm not sure that more people in prison is the right solution.
I think there's precedent for shipping them to Australia. It probably costs less to taxpayers, and it doesn't even harm Australians since our thieves are less dangerous than their spiders.
As someone born in the UK, who grew up in Australia, and who now lives in the US, this trope always makes me laugh...
England sent prisoners to America for nearly 70 years before sending any to Australia, mostly Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas.
England sent prisoners to America for nearly 70 years before sending any to Australia, mostly Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas.
*checks map*
That looks like the greater D.C. area. Coincidence?
That looks like the greater D.C. area. Coincidence?
Because outsourcing parts of our economy to Pacific countries has worked out so well in the past.
No, and prison is expensive.
1.) Corporal punishment
or
2. ) Exile to Amchitka, with some camping gear, a knife, and fishing line/hooks.
1.) Corporal punishment
or
2. ) Exile to Amchitka, with some camping gear, a knife, and fishing line/hooks.
Theft is an organized crime.
That tweaker/junkie who steals your bike, breaks into your storage unit, whatever? He's not an organization man. The dude with a standing offer to pay twenty bucks for the bike, or ten if it's shitty? He's with an organization.
What I propose is that we start enforcing the law and treat theft as a crime, not a nuisance or fact of life. Roll up the organizations, toss them in prison, and repeat over and over until the message gets out.
This isn't a problem which can be solved at the tweaker level. What we can do, and simply choose not to, is get every single dude with twenty bucks or a baggie to trade for your bike. All that's lacking is the political will.
That tweaker/junkie who steals your bike, breaks into your storage unit, whatever? He's not an organization man. The dude with a standing offer to pay twenty bucks for the bike, or ten if it's shitty? He's with an organization.
What I propose is that we start enforcing the law and treat theft as a crime, not a nuisance or fact of life. Roll up the organizations, toss them in prison, and repeat over and over until the message gets out.
This isn't a problem which can be solved at the tweaker level. What we can do, and simply choose not to, is get every single dude with twenty bucks or a baggie to trade for your bike. All that's lacking is the political will.
What's also lacking is any evidence of any kind that this would have the effect you desire.
immibis(1)
> AFAIK, there is reasonably clear evidence that deterrence has a very low impact on this sort of crime,
Could you share some of this evidence?
Could you share some of this evidence?
first result from google come for "effect of deterrence on property crime"
https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf
second result, summarizes and links to several review papers:
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...
https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf
second result, summarizes and links to several review papers:
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...
Then I'm not sure what you mean by "deterrence". Both of the linked articles argue against increasing the severity of punishment, but they also say that the certainty of getting caught is a strong deterrent.
This doesn't seem to be in conflict with what the GP said ("supporting laws and politicians that catch and punish criminals effectively"). It seems to me that many people have a problem with thieves not being punished at all.
This doesn't seem to be in conflict with what the GP said ("supporting laws and politicians that catch and punish criminals effectively"). It seems to me that many people have a problem with thieves not being punished at all.
Most of the people I have read or heard advocate for "more effective handling of crime" are much bigger on the severity of the sentence, though I don't deny that many will mention both. The "N strikes and you're out" angle, for example, is all about the severity of the sentence once you reach N.
New HN commenter "smeeger" whose subthread we are in seems close to favoring violence as punishment for relatively minor crimes, for example.
Still, yes, things that significantly increased the likelihood of being caught and punished do seem like a good idea, and do not require sentencing being changed.
New HN commenter "smeeger" whose subthread we are in seems close to favoring violence as punishment for relatively minor crimes, for example.
Still, yes, things that significantly increased the likelihood of being caught and punished do seem like a good idea, and do not require sentencing being changed.
ive been commenting here since 2014 but have to constantly make new accounts because HN bans me for expressing problematic beliefs. the fact that this thread got through the filter feels like a miracle or a dream… you need to read more carefully. i used the word effectively for a very specific reason. even the insanely sympathetic and humane punishments on the books in western countries now would basically stop crime if they were applied and implemented properly. if punishment were actually likely. if prisons werent just boot camp for criminals. social clubs. prisoners emerge from prison emboldened, not humbled. our system is broken and it stays broken because people are crappy. recently i actually decided to stop caring because its so pointless.
oh and your hands are waving a lot more than mine… you clearly dont want to think too hard about this
oh and your hands are waving a lot more than mine… you clearly dont want to think too hard about this
smeeger(1)
Please provide a list. Keep in mind you yourself added “effectively” as a criteria.
Easy to say "never use a storage unit" when you have a long-term home.
The indifference of this by everyone involved is infuriating. This criminal activity is treated as natural as rain, just something us 98% of people have to endure.
It's important to remember that accepting crime, especially low level crime like this is a policy choice. It's the same people doing the same crimes over and over. They have run ins with the law and they just get let go to continue terrorizing the rest of us.
For instance, the number of state prisoners that have had 15 or more prior arrests is over 26%. You can cut crime. You can just prosecute these people and take them out of society for their most destructive years (18-40) and we can end this madness.
Even a 15 strikes and you're out policy would make a huge impact on the quality of life for the rest of us
https://mleverything.substack.com/p/acceptance-of-crime-is-a...
It's important to remember that accepting crime, especially low level crime like this is a policy choice. It's the same people doing the same crimes over and over. They have run ins with the law and they just get let go to continue terrorizing the rest of us.
For instance, the number of state prisoners that have had 15 or more prior arrests is over 26%. You can cut crime. You can just prosecute these people and take them out of society for their most destructive years (18-40) and we can end this madness.
Even a 15 strikes and you're out policy would make a huge impact on the quality of life for the rest of us
https://mleverything.substack.com/p/acceptance-of-crime-is-a...
The US already incarcerates vastly more people than most comparable nations. And yet this level of incarceration does not seem to have had the effect you want.
It seems that you imagine that the crime is somehow intrinsic to the current group of people committing it, and that by removing them from society, their behavior would not recur.
While there are arguments for this sort of thing, it is also based on a wilfull misreading (or no-reading) of what we know about the reasons why people commit crime at all.
It seems that you imagine that the crime is somehow intrinsic to the current group of people committing it, and that by removing them from society, their behavior would not recur.
While there are arguments for this sort of thing, it is also based on a wilfull misreading (or no-reading) of what we know about the reasons why people commit crime at all.
Explain to me why someone that's been arrested 15 times should be let go to terrorize others.
That person that has been arrest 15 times before cannot continue to commit crime if he's behind bars. You don't need to "read" the data to come to this conclusion.
People commit crime in large part because they can get away with it.
It's not complicated.
That person that has been arrest 15 times before cannot continue to commit crime if he's behind bars. You don't need to "read" the data to come to this conclusion.
People commit crime in large part because they can get away with it.
It's not complicated.
That's not really the issue though (and for the record, I agree that a person found guilty of what they were arrested for 15 times should be incarcerated).
The problem is: why is this person doing this, because there are at least two outcomes:
1. we lock them up, and a part of the problem is gone
2. we lock them up, and someone else steps in to do the same thing
From my perspective, there's ample evidence to suggest that #2 is more likely, and thus even if locking them up has some moral weight behind it, it isn't likely to be a solution to crime in general.
The problem is: why is this person doing this, because there are at least two outcomes:
1. we lock them up, and a part of the problem is gone
2. we lock them up, and someone else steps in to do the same thing
From my perspective, there's ample evidence to suggest that #2 is more likely, and thus even if locking them up has some moral weight behind it, it isn't likely to be a solution to crime in general.
There's only so many people that are criminally predisposed. The org doing bike thefts will stop if the penalty is high enough. Singapore has low crime because they prosecute aggressively. No one seemed to fill in for arrested gang members in El Salvador (extreme example)
Then there are the crazy person punching an Asian lady on the subway crimes and these fall squarely in 1
Then there are the crazy person punching an Asian lady on the subway crimes and these fall squarely in 1
You've blinded yourself by othering them. "There's only so many people criminally predisposed" - that may be comforting, but it's too naive to build a policy around.
100% of people would commit crimes under the right circumstances. As an extreme example, 100% of us could sustain a life changing head injury that renders us more violent and aggressive than we were before, and that could happen at any moment. The most kind and timid person you know could turn into a monster if they fell down the stairs. You could turn into a monster if you fell down the stairs. The only thing you can do to stop that from happening is to protect your head, it doesn't matter how good or virtuous you are presently.
You can't incarcerate your way out of crime. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
100% of people would commit crimes under the right circumstances. As an extreme example, 100% of us could sustain a life changing head injury that renders us more violent and aggressive than we were before, and that could happen at any moment. The most kind and timid person you know could turn into a monster if they fell down the stairs. You could turn into a monster if you fell down the stairs. The only thing you can do to stop that from happening is to protect your head, it doesn't matter how good or virtuous you are presently.
You can't incarcerate your way out of crime. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
100% of us could sustain a life changing head injury that renders us more violent and aggressive than we were before, and that could happen at any moment
Then I should be imprisoned if I present a threat to the public. I don't understand what your point is.
Then I should be imprisoned if I present a threat to the public. I don't understand what your point is.
If you think that there is a distinct group of people who commit all the crimes (as was suggested), and we can solve the problem of crime by locking all of them up, than you are mistaken. Or rather, that group is "everyone."
It's an easy trap to fall into for two reasons. It would appear that you and those you know aren't capable of being criminals. This is more comforting than it is true. Everyone, including good people, has the potential to do something horrible; the problem of evil isn't that it's present in a certain group who we can imprison, the problem is that it's present in us all.
The second thing which makes "lock them all up" a seductive proposal is that it's cynical. Cynicism can feel like the opposite of naivete, so it can feel like you're being clear eyed and realistic about the situation and that the people you disagree with (say, prison abolitionists) are naive bleeding hearts. But cynicism is actually just another form of naivete. It's making the same error - blinking while staring into the abyss - with different aesthetics.
It's an easy trap to fall into for two reasons. It would appear that you and those you know aren't capable of being criminals. This is more comforting than it is true. Everyone, including good people, has the potential to do something horrible; the problem of evil isn't that it's present in a certain group who we can imprison, the problem is that it's present in us all.
The second thing which makes "lock them all up" a seductive proposal is that it's cynical. Cynicism can feel like the opposite of naivete, so it can feel like you're being clear eyed and realistic about the situation and that the people you disagree with (say, prison abolitionists) are naive bleeding hearts. But cynicism is actually just another form of naivete. It's making the same error - blinking while staring into the abyss - with different aesthetics.
> Everyone has the potential to do something horrible; the problem of evil isn't that it's present in a certain group who we can imprison, the problem is that it's present in us all.
But some people are actually more predisposed towards criminality than others. We aren't blank slates.
But some people are actually more predisposed towards criminality than others. We aren't blank slates.
The extent to which criminality (or any particular human behavior) is driven by circumstance or "nature" is (and for millenia has been) a matter for considerable debate.
It's clear that both contribute, which is important because that means there are neither "ur-criminals" nor "not-criminals". While some may, by their nature, be more likely to commit a certain type of crime, none are free from the possibility of doing so under some circumstances.
It's clear that both contribute, which is important because that means there are neither "ur-criminals" nor "not-criminals". While some may, by their nature, be more likely to commit a certain type of crime, none are free from the possibility of doing so under some circumstances.
> Then I should be imprisoned if I present a threat to the public.
The problem with this is that's it is extremely easy for people to define "threat" in ways that are convenient to them or that support their prejudices, a la Reefer Madness.
The problem with this is that's it is extremely easy for people to define "threat" in ways that are convenient to them or that support their prejudices, a la Reefer Madness.
>and for the record, I agree that a person found guilty of what they were arrested for 15 times should be incarcerated
but you know damned well that most of the time it doesn't even go to trial. they're arrested, released, arrested, released, charges pressed, charges dropped; an endless merry-go-round. eventually people stop even reporting crime, why should they bother when the criminals don't get put away?
>From my perspective, there's ample evidence to suggest that #2 is more likely
why? this is like the "lump of labour" fallacy but for crime.
and yes, getting rid of just a few career criminals does disproportionately reduce crime. here's a funny natural experiment from ireland:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/number-of-burgla...
but you know damned well that most of the time it doesn't even go to trial. they're arrested, released, arrested, released, charges pressed, charges dropped; an endless merry-go-round. eventually people stop even reporting crime, why should they bother when the criminals don't get put away?
>From my perspective, there's ample evidence to suggest that #2 is more likely
why? this is like the "lump of labour" fallacy but for crime.
and yes, getting rid of just a few career criminals does disproportionately reduce crime. here's a funny natural experiment from ireland:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/number-of-burgla...
we lock them up, and someone else steps in to do the same thing
Crime isn't an internship program.
Crime isn't an internship program.
It is, it has the colloquial name of "hanging with the wrong crowd."
You don't have to commit a crime to be arrested. You just have to do something the police don't like - like holding up certain signs in a public space.
> why someone that's been arrested 15 times should be let go to terrorize others
First, correct the assumption that multiple arrests mean you're just living your life "terrorizing" society. Perhaps start with using words that are objective and neutral, not just to fan the flames of passionate rhetoric.
First, correct the assumption that multiple arrests mean you're just living your life "terrorizing" society. Perhaps start with using words that are objective and neutral, not just to fan the flames of passionate rhetoric.
american style incarceration breeds criminals. it isnt a form of punishment for the vast majority of people who end up in prison or jail. its details like these that bleeding heart people gloss over.
[deleted]
>The US already incarcerates vastly more people than most comparable nations
because it has vastly more crime than comparable nations. you have to look at what happens to crime in the US over time, when you are more or less stringent about jailing criminals; predictably as you fill the jails, crime goes down, and when you empty them, crimes goes up.
>It seems that you imagine that the crime is somehow intrinsic to the current group of people committing it, and that by removing them from society, their behavior would not recur.
people try to smuggle this false premise into discussions about law and order all the time. the primary purpose of jail is not rehabilitation, it is to protect the public from criminals. you put them in jail so that they can't commit crimes. if they commit crimes when they leave, put them in jail again. jails mostly don't rehabilitate criminals, but that's a failure of the idea of mass rehabilitation, not a failure of mass incarceration. crime is a choice.
because it has vastly more crime than comparable nations. you have to look at what happens to crime in the US over time, when you are more or less stringent about jailing criminals; predictably as you fill the jails, crime goes down, and when you empty them, crimes goes up.
>It seems that you imagine that the crime is somehow intrinsic to the current group of people committing it, and that by removing them from society, their behavior would not recur.
people try to smuggle this false premise into discussions about law and order all the time. the primary purpose of jail is not rehabilitation, it is to protect the public from criminals. you put them in jail so that they can't commit crimes. if they commit crimes when they leave, put them in jail again. jails mostly don't rehabilitate criminals, but that's a failure of the idea of mass rehabilitation, not a failure of mass incarceration. crime is a choice.
we incarcerate at a higher rate per capita, not just in absolute numbers. based on your apparent view of things, that ought to result in less crime per capita, but it does not.
> more or less stringent about jailing criminals
is quite different than "fill the jails, empty the jails"
Quite a bit of research on the effect of deterrence on crime seems to strongly suggest that it is the level of certainty of being caught and punished that has a deterrent effect, not the severity of the sentence. This would correlate with "more or less stringent about jailing criminals".
> the primary purpose of jail is not rehabilitation, it is to protect the public from criminals
This is a statement of belief, and there are people who believe otherwise. I don't have a strong position either way, but I don't like people asserting that their opinions are self-obvious truths about the world.
> more or less stringent about jailing criminals
is quite different than "fill the jails, empty the jails"
Quite a bit of research on the effect of deterrence on crime seems to strongly suggest that it is the level of certainty of being caught and punished that has a deterrent effect, not the severity of the sentence. This would correlate with "more or less stringent about jailing criminals".
> the primary purpose of jail is not rehabilitation, it is to protect the public from criminals
This is a statement of belief, and there are people who believe otherwise. I don't have a strong position either way, but I don't like people asserting that their opinions are self-obvious truths about the world.
Independent of any discussion on deterrence or incarceration's purpose, I think you misinterpret parent point as being about absolute numbers, but I read their point as per capita crime rates being higher, and thus per capita incarceration rates are as well being downstream of a population committing higher per capita offenses.
America has measurably larger underclass than, say, EU measurable in absolute and per capita terms across metrics like offense rates, incarcerations, income equality, education...
America has measurably larger underclass than, say, EU measurable in absolute and per capita terms across metrics like offense rates, incarcerations, income equality, education...
If incarceration is always "downstream" of per-capita crime rates, then it presumably has little effect on the upstream causes of crime.
And yes, the US has a larger underclass than the EU, which just might have something to do with why we have more crime, no? And if so, increasing incarceration rates is not likely to help much, is it?
And yes, the US has a larger underclass than the EU, which just might have something to do with why we have more crime, no? And if so, increasing incarceration rates is not likely to help much, is it?
I think I see where the discussion frequently diverges on these threads - you're pointing out that incarceration does not appear to decrease offenses, while myself and others are pointing out why more incarceration is an outcome (desired, if we're being opinionated) of more offenses.
I think you're onto something in calling your point out, but at the same time, it's daring commenters to ask you what any society's response to crimes should be.
Rather than be coy, I'll stick my neck out and claim incarceration is about optimizing for outcomes among the peaceful/orderly middle and higher classes. We don't have to worry about the philosophical question of why crime occurs, or whether incarceration will work overall, it works well enough to deflect crimes away from certain locally policed areas and demographics and that flawed approach is good enough to keep the unkind, leaky system going.
I think you're onto something in calling your point out, but at the same time, it's daring commenters to ask you what any society's response to crimes should be.
Rather than be coy, I'll stick my neck out and claim incarceration is about optimizing for outcomes among the peaceful/orderly middle and higher classes. We don't have to worry about the philosophical question of why crime occurs, or whether incarceration will work overall, it works well enough to deflect crimes away from certain locally policed areas and demographics and that flawed approach is good enough to keep the unkind, leaky system going.
> incarceration is about optimizing for outcomes among the peaceful/orderly middle and higher classes.
Actually I focus more on protecting the peaceful/orderly poor. Poor people are overwhelmingly law-abiding, but they suffer from the overwhelming majority of crime. On the other hand it's mostly naive rich people who subscribe to these theories that put the blame on everyone except the criminal, and they most of all can afford to insulate themselves from the predictable chaos when those theories are put into practice. Poor people don't have that luxury.
Actually I focus more on protecting the peaceful/orderly poor. Poor people are overwhelmingly law-abiding, but they suffer from the overwhelming majority of crime. On the other hand it's mostly naive rich people who subscribe to these theories that put the blame on everyone except the criminal, and they most of all can afford to insulate themselves from the predictable chaos when those theories are put into practice. Poor people don't have that luxury.
The comment you replied to is talking about incapacitation, not deterrence.
The US incarcerates lots of people, but how many are imprisoned for things that aren't crimes? You could drop all the folks imprisoned for stuff like driving while black, and make space for organized theft rings
One of the costs of low trust society is it forces everyone to think short term. You can’t save if your money will be inflated. You can’t collect if it will be stolen and no party will take responsibility for protecting it.
“But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal”
“But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal”
> the number of state prisoners that have had 15 or more prior arrests is over 26%
So one reading of this statistic is "incarcerating people turns them into criminals"
which suggests that maybe the better way is something else than locking people up and giving them a black mark which prevents them ever getting a viable job?
So one reading of this statistic is "incarcerating people turns them into criminals"
which suggests that maybe the better way is something else than locking people up and giving them a black mark which prevents them ever getting a viable job?
>which suggests that maybe the better way is something else than locking people up and giving them a black mark which prevents them ever getting a viable job?
The fact is that there are a sizeable number of people, for a variety of reasons, who don't have the interest or capacity in holding a viable job. It would be nice if this wasn't the case, but the world exists as it exists, not as we wish it would.
The fact is that there are a sizeable number of people, for a variety of reasons, who don't have the interest or capacity in holding a viable job. It would be nice if this wasn't the case, but the world exists as it exists, not as we wish it would.
[deleted]
If thieves had emptied my storage unit before I married my wife and she made the decision for me, they would have been doing me a favour.
I don’t think any advanced security storage solution is likely to get many clients since they usually choose based on pricing.
I don’t think any advanced security storage solution is likely to get many clients since they usually choose based on pricing.
This is more a rant against insurance than storage units.
Insurance is a heavily regulated industry. Please complain to your state insurance commissioner.
Insurance is a heavily regulated industry. Please complain to your state insurance commissioner.
So many of these stories sound like some JRPG.
Your reward for being such a diligent and highly achieving collector ... is the thieves target you preferentially. "You gained a Torture++ Level, Congratulations!"
You spent so much effort solving the last burglary, and chose such a highly secure location ... that now the thieves view your collection as a high level challenge.
... and are immediately notified of the available achievement. Some Prison Warden voice announces "There's a griefer, diligence punishing achievement available in Borg sector # of #." Their thief tools immediately 0-Day, exploit, jackpot, lottery level up to be better than your facility.
Your reward for being such a diligent and highly achieving collector ... is the thieves target you preferentially. "You gained a Torture++ Level, Congratulations!"
You spent so much effort solving the last burglary, and chose such a highly secure location ... that now the thieves view your collection as a high level challenge.
... and are immediately notified of the available achievement. Some Prison Warden voice announces "There's a griefer, diligence punishing achievement available in Borg sector # of #." Their thief tools immediately 0-Day, exploit, jackpot, lottery level up to be better than your facility.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a magical girl."
Totally not even vaguely fit to be a magical girl. That sounds like signing for a Saw movie. Somebody else can go be Kiki and fight with Miyazaki about ruining Japanese society.
Good old insurance companies, always looking for ways to get out of having to pay out for claims.
I mean, I guess it is their job, so can't really fault them for that.
I mean, I guess it is their job, so can't really fault them for that.
No, their job is to accurately calculate the expected value of the losses, then collect a premium slightly higher than the expected value, turning an unpredictable, potentially high loss into a predictable small one. Reverse gambling, basically.
1. Know your insurance contract, know what's actually covered and what not (sometimes describing the same facts in two different yet truthful ways will result in your claim being accepted or denied) and have a non-shit insurance company (check reviews that talk about how they handle claims or ask friends that had claims).
2. "Self-insure" risks where the variance won't hurt you. In other words, if you can grudgingly eat the loss if it happened, don't get insurance and eat the loss if it happens. If you have a lot of disposable income, you don't need insurance for something that won't noticeably shift your budget. Likewise, pick high deductibles. What would you rather do: Eat a $300 loss, or have paid $200 in additional premiums and spend two hours of filling out their paperwork?
3a. An exception is if you just really want the peace of mind, are willing to pay for that, and think you can find an insurance company that will actually pay.
3b. Another exception is if you think they miscalculated the premiums. I know that this is unlikely, but it ties into the "peace of mind" criteria - if you think a risk is more likely than it actually is, just insuring it might be an easy way out. The premium might also be accurate for the average, but you might also think or know that you are at a significantly higher risk than average.
For the latter two points, I like to consider insurance cost "per decade" or "per lifetime".
1. Know your insurance contract, know what's actually covered and what not (sometimes describing the same facts in two different yet truthful ways will result in your claim being accepted or denied) and have a non-shit insurance company (check reviews that talk about how they handle claims or ask friends that had claims).
2. "Self-insure" risks where the variance won't hurt you. In other words, if you can grudgingly eat the loss if it happened, don't get insurance and eat the loss if it happens. If you have a lot of disposable income, you don't need insurance for something that won't noticeably shift your budget. Likewise, pick high deductibles. What would you rather do: Eat a $300 loss, or have paid $200 in additional premiums and spend two hours of filling out their paperwork?
3a. An exception is if you just really want the peace of mind, are willing to pay for that, and think you can find an insurance company that will actually pay.
3b. Another exception is if you think they miscalculated the premiums. I know that this is unlikely, but it ties into the "peace of mind" criteria - if you think a risk is more likely than it actually is, just insuring it might be an easy way out. The premium might also be accurate for the average, but you might also think or know that you are at a significantly higher risk than average.
For the latter two points, I like to consider insurance cost "per decade" or "per lifetime".
But they can offer a lower price than competitors or collect more profits (to taste) by having a lower expected value of losses by screwing you over
> No, their job is to accurately calculate the expected value of the losses, then collect a premium slightly higher than the expected value, turning an unpredictable, potentially high loss into a predictable small one. Reverse gambling, basically.
No, premiums don't need to cover payouts. You have to pay the premiums before you get any payouts, so the company invests them and makes money that way.
No, premiums don't need to cover payouts. You have to pay the premiums before you get any payouts, so the company invests them and makes money that way.
That's still basically the same thing if you take into account the opportunity cost of the premiums rather than the raw dollar value.
Off-topic, I find people have a similar misunderstanding of FAANG compensation. Functionally, the salary + RSU + bonus + refresh structure is equivalent to a larger salary (enough to cover fees for the following procedure) where you take out 4-yr loans every year to invest in the company stock. With that in mind, listing the realized stock growth when describing total compensation always felt a bit disingenuous.
Nobody will give you an unsecured loan for 100 percent of your salary, but tech companies will happily grant you rsus for that much.
100% is a bit uncommon. Take that at face value though. BigCo tech companies have much lower salaries than what you can get elsewhere. Compare a salary of X/yr plus a 4-yr RSU grant of X/yr to a salary of 3X. You absolutely can get a 50% partially secured loan for 4X to obtain similar payment characteristics to the BigCo offering (speaking in round numbers to keep the math simple, and ignoring fees, hedging, ... because they change exact thresholds and other minutiae rather than the core of the argument).
[deleted]
It's not their job. It would be easy to adopt laws requiring insurance companies to separate insurance pool money (used to pay out insurance) and operational money (used to pay employees and profits), and have these separated when showing the price of insurance. That would reduce the moral hazard of insurance companies paying profit out of the pool.
It can actually make it worse, and creates different Hazards.
When it does work is when insurance has no influence on the price of goods, and is a minor consumer. For example, when fire insurance pays to replace your goods that burnt up.
When it doesnt work is when insurance is the predominant purchaser of those goods. A good example would be US health insurance, which has an 80/20 rule just like your proposal. Health insurers by law (ACA) must pay out 80%, with 20% allowed for opex and shareholder returns. The Hazard is that as an industry, to increase returns, you want the cost of care as high as possible, thereby maximizing your allowable profit.
It is a similar problem to how power is regulated in California, which has a mandated profit cap as a percent of costs. As a result, these regulated companies have the highest opex and cost of power in the nation of approximately $0.50/kwh
When it does work is when insurance has no influence on the price of goods, and is a minor consumer. For example, when fire insurance pays to replace your goods that burnt up.
When it doesnt work is when insurance is the predominant purchaser of those goods. A good example would be US health insurance, which has an 80/20 rule just like your proposal. Health insurers by law (ACA) must pay out 80%, with 20% allowed for opex and shareholder returns. The Hazard is that as an industry, to increase returns, you want the cost of care as high as possible, thereby maximizing your allowable profit.
It is a similar problem to how power is regulated in California, which has a mandated profit cap as a percent of costs. As a result, these regulated companies have the highest opex and cost of power in the nation of approximately $0.50/kwh
What you're talking about is a market failure, basically admitting that markets don't decrease prices in many cases. Which is a much deeper rabbit hole.
My proposal even doesn't say what the ratio should be. If there wasn't legally defined maximal price margin (say 20%), I don't see what it would change in your argument - the companies would be free to ask for even more. Conversely, there is nothing that prevents the companies from lowering the margin as a result of competitive pressure from consumers.
My proposal even doesn't say what the ratio should be. If there wasn't legally defined maximal price margin (say 20%), I don't see what it would change in your argument - the companies would be free to ask for even more. Conversely, there is nothing that prevents the companies from lowering the margin as a result of competitive pressure from consumers.
I don't know if I'd call it a market failure or a regulatory failure, or where the line is defined in the economic literature.
The difference between a cap system and a uncapped system is the incentive to increase the base price as well.
The difference between a cap system and a uncapped system is the incentive to increase the base price as well.
There is an incentive for companies to increase prices, regardless of the price cap, aka "profit motive". That we can agree on.
My question is about the incentive to decrease prices (e.g. due to competition). Why it should be affected by the price cap? That's what you need to explain.
My question is about the incentive to decrease prices (e.g. due to competition). Why it should be affected by the price cap? That's what you need to explain.
The competivive effect is not damped by price caps. It still exists (or doesnt), in the market place.
You usually see %profit caps as a failed band-aid in markets with poor competition. For example, customers usually dont have a choice in electric company.
There is also really poor competition in health insurance for a number of reasons. Insurance is tied to employment and both options and mobility are limited. Within those options, it is verry difficult to discern differences. I certainly cant tell if a 10% cheaper plan is that way because it is more efficiently run, or if it provides 10% worse coverage.
Last, while firms may compete on total price, they can collaborate to raise the costs for the industry at large. For example, health insurance companies would want to wholesale price of drugs to rise for everyone.
Im not saying that %profit caps are worse than unfettered monopolies (although they might in some cases). My Point is that profit can have huge market distortions, and economically sound solutions would focus on addressing the fundamental issue of poor competition.
You usually see %profit caps as a failed band-aid in markets with poor competition. For example, customers usually dont have a choice in electric company.
There is also really poor competition in health insurance for a number of reasons. Insurance is tied to employment and both options and mobility are limited. Within those options, it is verry difficult to discern differences. I certainly cant tell if a 10% cheaper plan is that way because it is more efficiently run, or if it provides 10% worse coverage.
Last, while firms may compete on total price, they can collaborate to raise the costs for the industry at large. For example, health insurance companies would want to wholesale price of drugs to rise for everyone.
Im not saying that %profit caps are worse than unfettered monopolies (although they might in some cases). My Point is that profit can have huge market distortions, and economically sound solutions would focus on addressing the fundamental issue of poor competition.
I've always wondered how expensive a good insurance policy is. One that is actually good for you the policy holder and enforced by contract. Like no haggling over market value because the items are insured for specific amounts.
homeowner's insurance approaches this if you know your agent (as in you've physically seen them) and the two of you have an understanding that you're going to be recording the purchase price (or market price, whichever is lower), date of purchase, serial numbers, and any other identification of all objects you want insured. If you do this, my understanding is that they cannot then do "replace toaster: $8; replace TV, Onn brand 42inch $170;" and so on. If your item's market price goes up in the meantime, the policy will have verbiage as to how that gets resolved. For example if i have a policy on something that is no longer being made, i can either be reimbursed for the price or a suitable replacement.
Generic, cookie-cutter, boilerplate policies probably net the insurance companies a fair amount of profit. People who actually care about the actual items they are insuring are possibly the highest risk, and as such, the premiums are also the highest. In my state, an umbrella policy that would cover my home, land, frontage, vehicles, farm equipment, well pump, etc is ~$500/month, with limits of around $1mm (this was 8 years ago or so, they probably went up in premiums). a half million on two vehicles is only about $200/month and homeowners varies but is ~<$100/month. The issue is how i'd get the rest of the stuff i said insured, because in my state, the homeowner's policy doesn't cover anything but the home (and contents to a limited extent) and whatever you call a tree on your property falling down and causing injury or damage not due to negligence.
Generic, cookie-cutter, boilerplate policies probably net the insurance companies a fair amount of profit. People who actually care about the actual items they are insuring are possibly the highest risk, and as such, the premiums are also the highest. In my state, an umbrella policy that would cover my home, land, frontage, vehicles, farm equipment, well pump, etc is ~$500/month, with limits of around $1mm (this was 8 years ago or so, they probably went up in premiums). a half million on two vehicles is only about $200/month and homeowners varies but is ~<$100/month. The issue is how i'd get the rest of the stuff i said insured, because in my state, the homeowner's policy doesn't cover anything but the home (and contents to a limited extent) and whatever you call a tree on your property falling down and causing injury or damage not due to negligence.
The international code of insurances says goods cannot be insured for more than their worth. The intent was to avoid perverse incentives, the result is our current society.
> The international code of insurances says goods cannot be insured for more than their worth. The intent was to avoid perverse incentives
Would you mind explaining what the perverse incentive is here? If I want to insure a pillow that I claim is worth $1 million, why should it matter what others are willing to pay for it?
Would you mind explaining what the perverse incentive is here? If I want to insure a pillow that I claim is worth $1 million, why should it matter what others are willing to pay for it?
If they let me insure my stuff for 100x of what it's worth, I lose all the incentive to prevent damage.
Even in the legit cases the insurance companies have to account for the "don't worry, it's insured" mindset. Keeping the ceiling on the insurance value is intended to leave at least some of the incentive to prevent the damage with the owner.
The insurance companies cannot rely solely on the "don't be careless" contract clause.
Even in the legit cases the insurance companies have to account for the "don't worry, it's insured" mindset. Keeping the ceiling on the insurance value is intended to leave at least some of the incentive to prevent the damage with the owner.
The insurance companies cannot rely solely on the "don't be careless" contract clause.
> If they let me insure my stuff for 100x of what it's worth, I lose all the incentive to prevent damage.
So what, though? Can't they just adjust the premium to account for that? It's not like they can't do their own modeling of what the item is likely worth -- if they see it's 1% of what you stated, then they can just as well cite you a ridiculous premium so that you wouldn't feel it's worth it. What's wrong with that?
So what, though? Can't they just adjust the premium to account for that? It's not like they can't do their own modeling of what the item is likely worth -- if they see it's 1% of what you stated, then they can just as well cite you a ridiculous premium so that you wouldn't feel it's worth it. What's wrong with that?
[deleted](1)
In theory nothing, in practice it's just not worth it. Mind that the bad effects would also spread broader than a voluntary contract between two parties.
We'd have to fund the courts to resolve the inevitable insurance fraud accusations, not to mention the additional firefighting crews to put out the additional fires that consume the $1 pillows.
We'd have to fund the courts to resolve the inevitable insurance fraud accusations, not to mention the additional firefighting crews to put out the additional fires that consume the $1 pillows.
The difference between gambling and insurance, is whether you have an insurable interest.
It makes the market for insurance much better if everyone actually has insurance. Because it reduces cost. It also keeps the industry legitimate, preventing gambling legislation from applying, and anti-gambling activists from targeting insurers.
You'll have to go to a bookie if you want to gamble.
It makes the market for insurance much better if everyone actually has insurance. Because it reduces cost. It also keeps the industry legitimate, preventing gambling legislation from applying, and anti-gambling activists from targeting insurers.
You'll have to go to a bookie if you want to gamble.
I don't follow the logic? How does above-market-value insurance discourage people from having insurance?
I don't get the comparison to gambling either, that reads more like an appeal to emotion than actual reasoning.
I don't get the comparison to gambling either, that reads more like an appeal to emotion than actual reasoning.
You can read about it at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurable_interest
(I don't know if that will make you more sympathetic to the legal rule or not.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurable_interest
(I don't know if that will make you more sympathetic to the legal rule or not.)
You're definitely right -- it's interesting, but it's not making me any more sympathetic, because I fail to see why the lack of insurable interest is something the premium can't account for, and they fail to provide any explanation of that.
As far as insurance gambling goes, it feels fundamentally different? In gambling, the "house" that sells you the ticket sets the rules and introduces the element of chance. In insurance, the entity selling the financial product here is in no way in control of the outcome, which is the exact opposite of gambling.
As far as insurance gambling goes, it feels fundamentally different? In gambling, the "house" that sells you the ticket sets the rules and introduces the element of chance. In insurance, the entity selling the financial product here is in no way in control of the outcome, which is the exact opposite of gambling.
Because premiums will rise across the board, so people with an insurable interest pay premiums set for people who intend to gamble or manipulate their insurance.
By demanding an insurable interest, insurance companies keep out gamblers and frauds. It also helps strengthen the idea that insurance shouldn't be abused or manipulated for a payout.
By demanding an insurable interest, insurance companies keep out gamblers and frauds. It also helps strengthen the idea that insurance shouldn't be abused or manipulated for a payout.
> Because premiums will rise across the board
I don't see why this is true. The insurer still knows the item and its market value. So if the insured amount is higher than the market value then it only needs to increase the premium in those cases, not for everyone else.
I don't see why this is true. The insurer still knows the item and its market value. So if the insured amount is higher than the market value then it only needs to increase the premium in those cases, not for everyone else.
The incentive would be for you to have a "happy pillow accident" in which you get $1M. Of course, you might think that's good for you but the rules have to apply for everybody, by definition.
> The incentive would be for you to have a "happy pillow accident" in which you get $1M. Of course, you might think that's good for you but the rules have to apply for everybody, by definition.
This doesn't pass the smell test, though. The premium would take care of that. You've told them you have a pillow, and that you want it insured for $1M. They could easily look at it and go "hm, this is worth $10", and give you a absurd premium of $999,900 in exchange for your absurd valuation. So happy accidents won't be worth it anymore. What's wrong with just letting the premium take care of it?
This doesn't pass the smell test, though. The premium would take care of that. You've told them you have a pillow, and that you want it insured for $1M. They could easily look at it and go "hm, this is worth $10", and give you a absurd premium of $999,900 in exchange for your absurd valuation. So happy accidents won't be worth it anymore. What's wrong with just letting the premium take care of it?
> What's wrong with just letting the premium take care of it?
Offering a deal that nobody honest would take is a waste of time for everyone involved.
Offering a deal that nobody honest would take is a waste of time for everyone involved.
Walking back from the pillow analogy a bit, I'd happily pay for homeowner's insurance that also covered lost wages, a temporary rental place, legal fees, and the other incidentals likely to arise in a fire or flood (as opposed to paying whatever high deductible I'm comfortable with on top of those other large, unknown costs). Adding those to the policy would necessarily go beyond the home value. Is that level of excess allowed?
> Offering a deal that nobody honest would take is a waste of time for everyone involved.
I'm not suggesting any insurer should be forced to offer a deal. They're welcome to just shrug and tell you to pound sand. What I don't see is the logic behind having an international code prohibiting the offering of such deals. Is the international code trying to dictate to the insurance company what is worth their time?
I'm not suggesting any insurer should be forced to offer a deal. They're welcome to just shrug and tell you to pound sand. What I don't see is the logic behind having an international code prohibiting the offering of such deals. Is the international code trying to dictate to the insurance company what is worth their time?
The international code is also defining the key distinguishing factor of insurance: it makes the insured whole against a risk that they actually have.
There are ways to bet on things where you don’t have that underlying risk: gambling, derivatives markets, prediction markets, etc.
These aren’t insurance and aren’t regulated as such.
There are ways to bet on things where you don’t have that underlying risk: gambling, derivatives markets, prediction markets, etc.
These aren’t insurance and aren’t regulated as such.
> why should it matter what others are willing to pay for it?
Because the actual value of the item determines your incentive to commit fraud.
If you insure a $10 pillow for $10, when you damage your pillow, you personally will definitely be out $10's value in goods in the hope you'll recover that $10 later. Since your only outcome is mildly negative, you don't have any incentive to file a false claim.
If you insure your $10 pillow for $1 million, as soon as the insurance is in hand, will have a strong incentive to destroy the pillow and try to collect a million dollars, since $1 million - $10 = $999,990.
This incentive exists regardless of what premium you had paid for the insurance (since it was a prior cost), and can't really be perfectly mitigated. Yes, you can criminalize fraud, ask for evidence, etc. but courts aren't perfect and it's always possible to be clever and fool people.
Also, some people are honest, and others are dishonest. An insurance company can't perfectly tell ahead of time who is who. Let's say I quote you $500k premium to insure your pillow for $1mm. A fraudster will see this as an opportunity to profit by $500k - $10. An honest person would see this as a terrible deal. Therefore only fraudsters would take this deal. If you continue to work backwards, as an insurance company you know there's no premium that you could quote that would end up in honest people taking this deal—there's no stable equilibrium where the premium charged ends up outweighing the (potentially fraudulent) claims.
Btw, this situation is famously described in George Akerlof's paper The Market for Lemons (he called it "market collapse"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons#Conditio...
Another way to see this: rationally as an insurance company, if you ask me for a policy for $1mm on a pillow, due to the risk of fraud I will likely be quoting you close to $1mm as the premium. You (as an honest person) rationally would never take this policy. Therefore, I shouldn't even bother offering it, to save everyone involved time and energy.
Because the actual value of the item determines your incentive to commit fraud.
If you insure a $10 pillow for $10, when you damage your pillow, you personally will definitely be out $10's value in goods in the hope you'll recover that $10 later. Since your only outcome is mildly negative, you don't have any incentive to file a false claim.
If you insure your $10 pillow for $1 million, as soon as the insurance is in hand, will have a strong incentive to destroy the pillow and try to collect a million dollars, since $1 million - $10 = $999,990.
This incentive exists regardless of what premium you had paid for the insurance (since it was a prior cost), and can't really be perfectly mitigated. Yes, you can criminalize fraud, ask for evidence, etc. but courts aren't perfect and it's always possible to be clever and fool people.
Also, some people are honest, and others are dishonest. An insurance company can't perfectly tell ahead of time who is who. Let's say I quote you $500k premium to insure your pillow for $1mm. A fraudster will see this as an opportunity to profit by $500k - $10. An honest person would see this as a terrible deal. Therefore only fraudsters would take this deal. If you continue to work backwards, as an insurance company you know there's no premium that you could quote that would end up in honest people taking this deal—there's no stable equilibrium where the premium charged ends up outweighing the (potentially fraudulent) claims.
Btw, this situation is famously described in George Akerlof's paper The Market for Lemons (he called it "market collapse"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons#Conditio...
Another way to see this: rationally as an insurance company, if you ask me for a policy for $1mm on a pillow, due to the risk of fraud I will likely be quoting you close to $1mm as the premium. You (as an honest person) rationally would never take this policy. Therefore, I shouldn't even bother offering it, to save everyone involved time and energy.
depends on the premium, obviously
What depends on the premium? In my mind, you state the item and the value, they tell you the premium they would cover it at. Where's the perverse incentive, and why is it relevant what anybody else would pay for it?
If you intend to insure a pillow for $1 million, expect the premium to cost about $999,950.
I wrote as much in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41755211
Then why did you object to zabzonk's comment?
Surely there's some middle ground between the sibling thread where it's insured for 1000x and the situation I and many others find ourselves in with insurance dealings where the insurance company digs up some sale in a private database by a wholesaler in Szechuan, calls that the "market price" and then cuts you a check that doesn't even come close to replacing the item, usually a car.
I would love a clause in the contract where for non-rare goods you have the option to have the insurance company make you whole by buying you a same model, same trim or higher, same miles or lower, same year or newer car. Like you claimed the market price was less then half of what I can buy it for, use whatever contacts you clearly have and buy it for that.
I would love a clause in the contract where for non-rare goods you have the option to have the insurance company make you whole by buying you a same model, same trim or higher, same miles or lower, same year or newer car. Like you claimed the market price was less then half of what I can buy it for, use whatever contacts you clearly have and buy it for that.
The key takeaway I think people are overlooking is that there’s a level of intelligence and persistence in thieves that make physical security an intractable problem with exponential cost scaling as you patch “holes.”
So from a systems approach, the better solution likely is something like:
Employ and provide safety for the people stealing from the units so they do not feel compelled to steal.
Imagine if the money spent securing these things, which is a multiple of this persons efforts, were spent on solving the root cause? Sounds like a better return on investment
So from a systems approach, the better solution likely is something like:
Employ and provide safety for the people stealing from the units so they do not feel compelled to steal.
Imagine if the money spent securing these things, which is a multiple of this persons efforts, were spent on solving the root cause? Sounds like a better return on investment
Physical security isn't an intractable problem, but effective security requires expensive expertise and maintenance. The cost of good security is why you keep your spare couch in a self storage center but your jewelry in a safe deposit box.
In theory, a well designed security system at a self storage center could be good enough to deter thieves relative to the value of what's stored there. In practice, the fact that owners pay for the security, insurance pays for break ins, and customers are supposed to evaluate the whole mess leads to a lot of naivete and show and not a lot of effective solutions. Show me a self storage place that guarantees you against the loss of your stuff and I'll show you a storage place with effective security. I'll also show you one that's more expensive that the competition and doesn't have much to show a consumer to justify the surcharge.
Looking at self storage places locally, they all seem to compete on price. When I eventually found one that seemed to be competing on security, it was 50% more expensive.
In theory, a well designed security system at a self storage center could be good enough to deter thieves relative to the value of what's stored there. In practice, the fact that owners pay for the security, insurance pays for break ins, and customers are supposed to evaluate the whole mess leads to a lot of naivete and show and not a lot of effective solutions. Show me a self storage place that guarantees you against the loss of your stuff and I'll show you a storage place with effective security. I'll also show you one that's more expensive that the competition and doesn't have much to show a consumer to justify the surcharge.
Looking at self storage places locally, they all seem to compete on price. When I eventually found one that seemed to be competing on security, it was 50% more expensive.
You’re partly conceding that this level of corrupting and mistrust is just what we have to live with. It has not always been this way though.
Side note. If I also accept it this is why cryptocurrency being able to reduce the cost of securing a transaction is still interesting to me. When you use a bank you don’t see the army of night guards, vaults, auditors, and IT people keeping it safe.
Side note. If I also accept it this is why cryptocurrency being able to reduce the cost of securing a transaction is still interesting to me. When you use a bank you don’t see the army of night guards, vaults, auditors, and IT people keeping it safe.
On the other hand, I hear a lot more about crypto wallets getting hacked than I do checking accounts at large banks.
I’m just saying that aspect has appeal, not that you should bank with bitcoin.
Of course, you don’t hear about internal bank problems either.
Of course, you don’t hear about internal bank problems either.
> Imagine if the money spent securing these things, which is a multiple of this persons efforts, were spent on solving the root cause? Sounds like a better return on investment
The root cause is social inequality of various kinds (including drug dependency). That should be something for society to resolve, not a burden for storage unit or home owners on their own - short of automated guns, there's not much any individual can do to keep out thieves.
The root cause is social inequality of various kinds (including drug dependency). That should be something for society to resolve, not a burden for storage unit or home owners on their own - short of automated guns, there's not much any individual can do to keep out thieves.
762236(2)
Nothing gets broken into in Texas, when everyone has a gun, no one fucks around in the dark. Just sayin’
I can see how you want to feel thats true, but the stats don't seem to say that's true. There's plenty of car theft and burglaries happening in the state, page 37 and 38.
https://www.dps.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/crim...
https://www.dps.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/crim...
You hope you simply forgot to add "/s" at the end
[deleted]
If you use the disc lock the storage facility sells, you'll likely
pay an additional markup on it, but it's also guaranteed to be
acceptable to their partner insurance company.
If they are deemed unacceptable, I now get to make the argument of negligence on the part of the storage facility, as they are the ones who sold it to me and I can reasonably assume that since they suggested it, and the insurance policy, that it is fit for purpose. I might then be able to make the case of fraud.
The paradox is that the monthly cost of a unit will quickly exceed the value of whatever is stored there unless the items have sentimental value or are very expensive. In TFA, their losses from theft was $500 and their insurance limit was $2,000. Within two years they would exceed that in rent payments on the unit. A Google search suggests the average storage unit tenancy is only 10 months. That's reasonable. Long-term storage only makes sense when the value exceeds what can reasonably be entrusted with the lax security of a storage facility.