Hacker News Reader

Comment by gascan | Hacker News Reader

Things get pretty weird when you start contemplating doing things at this scale. My father likes to tell of how, supposedly, McDonalds was considering introducing a new menu item, let's say it was an eggplant burger (I forget). The first question they had to answer was does the entire world produce enough eggplant?

Also, critically, if due to catastrophe you abandon your $100k home and buy another $100k home in another place, your move cost $200k.

View on HN

Your McDonalds example is a really good one. McDonalds, as of 2012, serves about 68 million people per day. In climate migrants/day we get an aggregate of 13 million over 82 years. That works out to 434 per day. And that's on the extreme negative end of outcomes for climate change.

To give some context to the numbers here [1] are states' net migration rates. So for instance Florida currently has a huge net migration rate of 16/1k. For a population of 21.3 million that means they're seeing 340,800 new residents per year. That's 933 per day. So the entire climate migration, in the worst case scenario, will involve the entirety of the US taking on half as many residents per year, as Florida alone already does. Of course it won't be entirely evenly spread out, but it also won't be jumping from e.g. 20 people/day to 20,000 people/day. It will mostly pass without major notice and, as the article mentions, is indeed already happening.

This makes for nice shocking headlines, but this entire article is extremely hyperbolic. At the same time I don't think anybody really cares. It seems like people want to be terrified, even when the numbers in no way justify the claims. We are increasingly indeed living in a post-facts world.

[1] - http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/state-migration-rat...

> Also, critically, if due to catastrophe you abandon your $100k home and buy another $100k home in another place, your move cost $200k.

I don't think that's right. Let's say I "own" a $100k home, and have a $100k mortgage. I walk away from that house, buy another $100k house with another $100k mortgage. At the start, I have a $100k asset and a $100k liability, for a net of zero. After, I have a $100k asset and two $100k liabilities, so I have lost $100k.

Alternately, let's say I own my $100k house free and clear, and have another $100 in the bank, for total assets of $200k. I abandon my house (writing the value down to $0), and buy another house for $100k. Now I still have the $100k house, but nothing in the bank. My total assets are $100k, so I've lost $100k.

In no scenario have I lost $200k.

> I walk away from that house

The bank sues you for the 100k unless you live in a non recourse state. In that case, the feds consider that forgiven 100k income and you’ll owe taxes.

>In no scenario have I lost $200k

The median US house price is 200k not 100k.

> > I walk away from that house

> The bank sues you for the 100k unless you live in a non recourse state. In that case, the feds consider that forgiven 100k income and you’ll owe taxes.

My scenario assumed you still owed the $100k. If you live in a non-recourse state and just walk away, you're probably not going to be able to get a new mortgage.

> > In no scenario have I lost $200k

> The median US house price is 200k not 100k.

gascan's example was with $100k houses.

In one case you've spent $100K and have a house and in the other, you've spent $200K and have a house. That represents a difference of $100K.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com