We'll see how well that holds up next time those people need assistance. Somehow I don't see any elected politician telling his voters "sorry, we already helped you".
>According to a new survey from Discover, millennials are outperforming older generations when it comes to saving for their future. In a national study of 2,205 people, Discover finds that 81 percent of millennials are currently saving in some capacity, compared to 74 percent of Generation Xers and 77 percent of baby boomers.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180110005313/en/Dis...
I couldn't find the percentage of Baby Boomers that are retired, but they certainly (as a generation) are not prepared for retirement. The Baby Boomers are (again, as a generation) incredibly reckless in all facets.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/where-did-baby-boomers-go-...
People move away when a location is no longer economically viable, period. They won't move away until then, despite the risks. If they did, no one would live in volcano or earthquake zones. Think San Francisco Bay is going to be depopulated just because it's a dangerous place to live?
My point is, until a location is no longer safe, they will generally stay put and resist any pressure to leave, even if all evidence points to it becoming unsafe in the not so distant future. Elected officials live in the moment, and will not make decisions that impact constituents today in preparation for a future disaster.
"Many businesses were permitted to stay in the flood plain, but houses and motels were either raised or moved due to the likelihood that a flood would occur while a person may be sleeping. The majority of the flood plain was made into large parks, which have increased in number and have been improved and updated on a continuing basis."
Again, that was a reaction to something that already happened. Are there any examples of elected officials forcing folks to leave an area well before something bad happens?