Should I buy a beach vacation home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

Stop with the pull out of ho hi minh city. It shows you are not an honest interlocutor. Let's use good 'ol NYC instead, hokay? Where wall street is, and the center of global banking? Because that location is just as risk prone as the outer banks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

Stop with the pull out of ho hi minh city. It shows you are not an honest interlocutor. Let's use good 'ol NYC instead, hokay? Where wall street is, and the center of global banking? Because that location is just as risk prone as the outer banks.

A) PP provided a list including Ho Chi Minh City as if it mattered. If we're all in agreement that it doesn't, we can move on and dismiss that silly post.

B) An enormous amount of money is being spent to protect Manhatten and there's a lot of concern. What does that have to do with it being a good idea for YOU to buy a property that will shortly be uninsurable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

Stop with the pull out of ho hi minh city. It shows you are not an honest interlocutor. Let's use good 'ol NYC instead, hokay? Where wall street is, and the center of global banking? Because that location is just as risk prone as the outer banks.

Just thinking out loud...most people in Manhattan live in skyscrapers so aren't too concerned about flooding like someone in the Outer Banks.

Also, there is far more to lose in NYC and therefore you are counting on the government to expend a fortune creating seawalls and taking other measures like they do in the Netherlands near Amsterdam to protect NYC...that they are never going to do to protect the Outer Banks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

Stop with the pull out of ho hi minh city. It shows you are not an honest interlocutor. Let's use good 'ol NYC instead, hokay? Where wall street is, and the center of global banking? Because that location is just as risk prone as the outer banks.

Just thinking out loud...most people in Manhattan live in skyscrapers so aren't too concerned about flooding like someone in the Outer Banks.

Also, there is far more to lose in NYC and therefore you are counting on the government to expend a fortune creating seawalls and taking other measures like they do in the Netherlands near Amsterdam to protect NYC...that they are never going to do to protect the Outer Banks.

sorry... do you have a point?

[Anonymous]

Lol, there are few DCUM topics more inclined to go intensely negative quickly (Disney, cheerleading, sororities) than, "Should I buy a beach house?"

The posters who invoke S&P comparisons are my personal favorite!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol, there are few DCUM topics more inclined to go intensely negative quickly (Disney, cheerleading, sororities) than, "Should I buy a beach house?"

The posters who invoke S&P comparisons are my personal favorite!

and the answer is always "no you shouldn't" and some old lady always posts "I love my vacation home, we spend all of our free time there and it's much better spending christmas in a poorly insulated damp shack teetering on the edge of the cliff that we've forced our family to join us at, than traveling to nice places, and we do it because we love it, not because we feel financially obligated" and then she has a big meltdown about everyone being jealous of her financial disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

Stop with the pull out of ho hi minh city. It shows you are not an honest interlocutor. Let's use good 'ol NYC instead, hokay? Where wall street is, and the center of global banking? Because that location is just as risk prone as the outer banks.

Just thinking out loud...most people in Manhattan live in skyscrapers so aren't too concerned about flooding like someone in the Outer Banks.

Maybe you should do your thinking less out loud? Skyscrapers have ground floors, which is how most people get to them. I can't believe I have to even respond to this.

Also, there is far more to lose in NYC and therefore you are counting on the government to expend a fortune creating seawalls and taking other measures like they do in the Netherlands near Amsterdam to protect NYC...that they are never going to do to protect the Outer Banks.

So, to be clear, some places are OK (NYC) but others (OBX and Ho Chi Minh city) can GFT. So who decides where the line is drawn? You?

My point is this: there are a lot of reasons to NOT buy a beach home. Fear of imminent rise in sea level is a stupid one. When that happens all bets are off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

Stop with the pull out of ho hi minh city. It shows you are not an honest interlocutor. Let's use good 'ol NYC instead, hokay? Where wall street is, and the center of global banking? Because that location is just as risk prone as the outer banks.

Just thinking out loud...most people in Manhattan live in skyscrapers so aren't too concerned about flooding like someone in the Outer Banks.

Also, there is far more to lose in NYC and therefore you are counting on the government to expend a fortune creating seawalls and taking other measures like they do in the Netherlands near Amsterdam to protect NYC...that they are never going to do to protect the Outer Banks.

sorry... do you have a point?

Well, yeah...that the perceived risk to someone living in NYC is essentially zero even if it is as "risk prone" as the outer banks...because if you live on floors 2 or above then it is zero to your apartment/condo, though you may have a special assessment for ground floor flooding.

Also, if it becomes a problem that happens routinely, the authorities will expend a ton of $$$s to ensure it stops, while they won't ever take those measures for the Outer Banks.

PP was saying you should be as concerned with climate change/hurricanes/flooding in NYC near Wall Street as the Outer Banks, but there are rational reasons why they are dramatically different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

Stop with the pull out of ho hi minh city. It shows you are not an honest interlocutor. Let's use good 'ol NYC instead, hokay? Where wall street is, and the center of global banking? Because that location is just as risk prone as the outer banks.

Just thinking out loud...most people in Manhattan live in skyscrapers so aren't too concerned about flooding like someone in the Outer Banks.

Maybe you should do your thinking less out loud? Skyscrapers have ground floors, which is how most people get to them. I can't believe I have to even respond to this.

Also, there is far more to lose in NYC and therefore you are counting on the government to expend a fortune creating seawalls and taking other measures like they do in the Netherlands near Amsterdam to protect NYC...that they are never going to do to protect the Outer Banks.

So, to be clear, some places are OK (NYC) but others (OBX and Ho Chi Minh city) can GFT. So who decides where the line is drawn? You?

My point is this: there are a lot of reasons to NOT buy a beach home. Fear of imminent rise in sea level is a stupid one. When that happens all bets are off.

I think that person is in support of buying beach homes.

It's not the fear of imminent sea level, it's climate change. Storms, higher surges, etc... And it's not stupid, ask anyone who has tried to insure a home in Florida recently. That problem is coming your way if you have a beach house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

Stop with the pull out of ho hi minh city. It shows you are not an honest interlocutor. Let's use good 'ol NYC instead, hokay? Where wall street is, and the center of global banking? Because that location is just as risk prone as the outer banks.

Just thinking out loud...most people in Manhattan live in skyscrapers so aren't too concerned about flooding like someone in the Outer Banks.

Maybe you should do your thinking less out loud? Skyscrapers have ground floors, which is how most people get to them. I can't believe I have to even respond to this.

Also, there is far more to lose in NYC and therefore you are counting on the government to expend a fortune creating seawalls and taking other measures like they do in the Netherlands near Amsterdam to protect NYC...that they are never going to do to protect the Outer Banks.

So, to be clear, some places are OK (NYC) but others (OBX and Ho Chi Minh city) can GFT. So who decides where the line is drawn? You?

My point is this: there are a lot of reasons to NOT buy a beach home. Fear of imminent rise in sea level is a stupid one. When that happens all bets are off.

The ground floor is one level...I mean Sandy did hit NYC and people hung out in their upper level apartments and rode it out. Are you referencing some tsunami situation like a disaster movie now?

It's also fair to say that yes the federal and state government care more about protecting NYC to the exclusion of less important places.

I can't speak for Ho Chi Minh City other than the government of Vietnam likely views it equivalent to NYC vs. some beach area of Vietnam, and will also go to great lengths to protect it to the exclusion of other places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

Stop with the pull out of ho hi minh city. It shows you are not an honest interlocutor. Let's use good 'ol NYC instead, hokay? Where wall street is, and the center of global banking? Because that location is just as risk prone as the outer banks.

Just thinking out loud...most people in Manhattan live in skyscrapers so aren't too concerned about flooding like someone in the Outer Banks.

Maybe you should do your thinking less out loud? Skyscrapers have ground floors, which is how most people get to them. I can't believe I have to even respond to this.

Also, there is far more to lose in NYC and therefore you are counting on the government to expend a fortune creating seawalls and taking other measures like they do in the Netherlands near Amsterdam to protect NYC...that they are never going to do to protect the Outer Banks.

So, to be clear, some places are OK (NYC) but others (OBX and Ho Chi Minh city) can GFT. So who decides where the line is drawn? You?

My point is this: there are a lot of reasons to NOT buy a beach home. Fear of imminent rise in sea level is a stupid one. When that happens all bets are off.

The ground floor is one level...I mean Sandy did hit NYC and people hung out in their upper level apartments and rode it out. Are you referencing some tsunami situation like a disaster movie now?

It's also fair to say that yes the federal and state government care more about protecting NYC to the exclusion of less important places.

I can't speak for Ho Chi Minh City other than the government of Vietnam likely views it equivalent to NYC vs. some beach area of Vietnam, and will also go to great lengths to protect it to the exclusion of other places.

this convo has gotten super weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

Stop with the pull out of ho hi minh city. It shows you are not an honest interlocutor. Let's use good 'ol NYC instead, hokay? Where wall street is, and the center of global banking? Because that location is just as risk prone as the outer banks.

Just thinking out loud...most people in Manhattan live in skyscrapers so aren't too concerned about flooding like someone in the Outer Banks.

Maybe you should do your thinking less out loud? Skyscrapers have ground floors, which is how most people get to them. I can't believe I have to even respond to this.

Also, there is far more to lose in NYC and therefore you are counting on the government to expend a fortune creating seawalls and taking other measures like they do in the Netherlands near Amsterdam to protect NYC...that they are never going to do to protect the Outer Banks.

So, to be clear, some places are OK (NYC) but others (OBX and Ho Chi Minh city) can GFT. So who decides where the line is drawn? You?

My point is this: there are a lot of reasons to NOT buy a beach home. Fear of imminent rise in sea level is a stupid one. When that happens all bets are off.

The ground floor is one level...I mean Sandy did hit NYC and people hung out in their upper level apartments and rode it out. Are you referencing some tsunami situation like a disaster movie now?

It's also fair to say that yes the federal and state government care more about protecting NYC to the exclusion of less important places.

I can't speak for Ho Chi Minh City other than the government of Vietnam likely views it equivalent to NYC vs. some beach area of Vietnam, and will also go to great lengths to protect it to the exclusion of other places.

this convo has gotten super weird.

I agree...but it's awfully weird to equate a non-important beach destination to a major city that is the capitol of world finance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when people say "don't buy a house at sea level because of global warming!" even though I do believe global warming is real.

Know what else is at sea level?:

New Orleans, Louisiana
Miami, Florida
New York City, New York
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California
Charleston, South Carolina
Norfolk, Virginia
Long Beach, California
Galveston, Texas
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Savannah, Georgia
Oakland, California
Honolulu, Hawaii
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Jakarta
Bangkok
Venice
Rotterdam
Tokyo
Lagos
Alexandria
Dhaka
Mumbai
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Singapore
Karachi
Copenhagen

Many more people than beach house owners are gonna have issues. As in, everybody on earth.

So go ahead and enjoy that beach house while you can. I sure enjoy the hell out of mine!

I don't really find the argument "Ho Chi Minh City is also going to have flood problems, so the fact that my beach house won't be insurable in the next 5-8 years is fine with me!" very persuasive.

That ignorance is your issue. It does not change the facts.

Investing, or even building, in an area that is only going to be more and more exposed to potentially destructive weather is crazy. Even if you're not looking at a beach house as an investment, it just doesn't seem like a good long-term play. It's not going to be a generational asset, and it's just going to be more and more of a pain in terms of maintenance.

And the point was there are hundreds of millions of people in coastal locations, and a good portion of the world's economy. If your beach house is underwater permanently, the entire world will be farked. Are you going to spend your time left here on this planet worried about that? Well, you do you, I will not.

It becomes everyone else's problem when beach house owners start expecting financial bailouts for their bad decision making.

Ahh, there's the tell, Miss Rand! Since you are someone who never, ever benefits from anything civic, and who lives in a place shielded permanently from flood, earthquake, tornado, fires, or any other kind of disaster, then your righteous indignation is completely justified, and I bow before it.

You're back to the idea that "just because a lot of people are doing this dumb thing, it's totally cool for me to do it too".

If someone is genuinely asking if it's a good idea to invest in an expensive asset that is rapidly getting riskier and risker because of climate issues, the answer should be "no" regardless of whether other people have made the mistake or whether Ho Chi Minh City has a flooding problem.

Stop with the pull out of ho hi minh city. It shows you are not an honest interlocutor. Let's use good 'ol NYC instead, hokay? Where wall street is, and the center of global banking? Because that location is just as risk prone as the outer banks.

Just thinking out loud...most people in Manhattan live in skyscrapers so aren't too concerned about flooding like someone in the Outer Banks.

Maybe you should do your thinking less out loud? Skyscrapers have ground floors, which is how most people get to them. I can't believe I have to even respond to this.

Also, there is far more to lose in NYC and therefore you are counting on the government to expend a fortune creating seawalls and taking other measures like they do in the Netherlands near Amsterdam to protect NYC...that they are never going to do to protect the Outer Banks.

So, to be clear, some places are OK (NYC) but others (OBX and Ho Chi Minh city) can GFT. So who decides where the line is drawn? You?

My point is this: there are a lot of reasons to NOT buy a beach home. Fear of imminent rise in sea level is a stupid one. When that happens all bets are off.

The ground floor is one level...I mean Sandy did hit NYC and people hung out in their upper level apartments and rode it out. Are you referencing some tsunami situation like a disaster movie now?

It's also fair to say that yes the federal and state government care more about protecting NYC to the exclusion of less important places.

I can't speak for Ho Chi Minh City other than the government of Vietnam likely views it equivalent to NYC vs. some beach area of Vietnam, and will also go to great lengths to protect it to the exclusion of other places.

this convo has gotten super weird.

I agree...but it's awfully weird to equate a non-important beach destination to a major city that is the capitol of world finance.

not how i would describe Ho Chi Minh City... but okay.

[Anonymous]

There is literally a deranged person on this thread who hates beach houses more than I have ever hated anything