Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Property - Casualty / General Insurance
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Browse Open Actuarial Jobs

Life  Health  Casualty  Pension  Entry Level  All Jobs  Salaries


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:33 AM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abelian Grape View Post
if their special schedule p gets more annoying, then vote no imo
You gave to pass it to find out what it says.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Apr 5, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:56 PM
Kalani Sitake's Avatar
Kalani Sitake Kalani Sitake is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abelian Grape View Post
if their special schedule p gets more annoying, then vote no imo
1. Even if it was exactly the same Special Schedule P -- just times three -- vote no.

2. Also asset requirements times three.

3. On the work comp side, these "states" are not drastically different from the territories that many companies have publicly filed.
__________________
ka-lah-nee sih-TA-kay
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-15-2018, 01:34 PM
Abelian Grape's Avatar
Abelian Grape Abelian Grape is offline
Meme-ber                         Meme-ber
CAS
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 41,077
Default

what would happen to SCIF?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-15-2018, 03:28 PM
Kalani Sitake's Avatar
Kalani Sitake Kalani Sitake is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abelian Grape View Post
what would happen to SCIF?
One possibility (if this were actually to go through): privatization. They are no where near as dominant as they used to be. Berkshire passed them for market share in WC last year.

Another: dissolution and moving the residual market to a pool or assigned risk structure. Again, the dislocation would be nowhere near as bad as it would have been 10 years ago.
__________________
ka-lah-nee sih-TA-kay
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-15-2018, 04:25 PM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,634
Default

See the other thread: I ran the numbers and based on the 2016 election results, all three newly formed states would be Democratic majority. (Based on 2012 SoCal / PoCal would only be 49% Dem, but that's still a no-go I think. GOP is not going to accept 2-4 new Dem Senators in exchange for a shot at a few electoral votes and 0-2 new GOP Senators.
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-15-2018, 05:17 PM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twig93 View Post
See the other thread: I ran the numbers and based on the 2016 election results, all three newly formed states would be Democratic majority. (Based on 2012 SoCal / PoCal would only be 49% Dem, but that's still a no-go I think. GOP is not going to accept 2-4 new Dem Senators in exchange for a shot at a few electoral votes and 0-2 new GOP Senators.
Things change. Today, my husband suggested that two out of three would probably tend Republican. If the Republicans in Congress think so, too, they will certainly be willing to approve it.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Apr 5, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-15-2018, 05:37 PM
Dr T Non-Fan Dr T Non-Fan is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Just outside of Nowhere
Posts: 91,536
Default

Better to split the state by congressional district. Some of those will themselves be split. I don't think the Voted Trump by County is a good indicator for what the GOP would want. I mean, look at Orange County, which is blue here. The 48th District is GOP, but voted Clinton (and Romney 2012, and Obama 2008).
__________________
DTNF's Basic Philosophy Regarding Posting: There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling! -- Jeff Albertson (CBG)
DTNF's Trademarked Standard Career Advice: "pass some exams and get back to us."
DTNF's Major advice: "Doesn't matter. Choose major that helps you with goal of Career Advice."
DTNF's Résumé Advice: Have a good and interesting answer to every item on it for the interviews.
DTNF's Law of Job Offers: You not only have to qualify for the position, but you also have to be the best candidate available for the offer.
DTNF's Work Philosophy: I am actuary. Please insert data. -- Actuary Actuarying Rodriguez.
Twitches' Advice to Crazy Women: Please just go buy your 30 cats already.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:49 AM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO View Post
Things change. Today, my husband suggested that two out of three would probably tend Republican. If the Republicans in Congress think so, too, they will certainly be willing to approve it.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your husband is wrong. (To be fair, I had the same initial impression as he did, but the facts simply do not support it.) NoCal was only *very* slightly less Democratic than NewCal. The entire Bay area plus Sacramento are pretty heavily Democratic.

Yes, North or East of that it's all Republican, but no one lives there.

If I remove San Francisco County from NoCal and leave the rest, it barely moves the needle because the surrounding counties and Sacramento are so heavily Democratic too.
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:58 AM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Better to split the state by congressional district.
From a practical standpoint I could not disagree more.

Splitting up counties would be an administrative / bureaucratic nightmare. It might not make national news every night because who cares about county politics in CA other than Californians in the affected counties? (And even half of them don't care.)

But it would be an unbelievable hassle. You'd be splitting up school districts, fire & police departments, road crews, taxation plans (we're going to use the taxes raised from the shopping mall over here to pay for the needed repairs on that bridge over there) and much much more. A lot of actual work happens at the county level. Whatever I think of where this guy chose to make the boundaries, I think it was *very* smart to make them 100% along existing county boundaries.

County lines are (pretty) permanent. Congressional districts are US Constitutionally mandated to change every 10 years. Basing the state lines on where the CA legislature (or did they ever move to the appointed committee?) decided to gerrymander the congressional districts in 2010 seems like an exceptionally odd place to draw the boundaries. County lines make infinitely more sense.

All academic because it's never going to happen, of course.
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice

Last edited by twig93; 06-18-2018 at 10:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-18-2018, 11:17 AM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 27,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
To answer the OP, it would be three times the hassle, +/- some very small unknown factor.
Disagree here. One of the problems with Cali is that they can make any goofy rule that they want to because the state is so big, nobody can afford to not write there. Break it up an they'll at least consider it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by twig93 View Post
All academic because it's never going to happen, of course.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.44796 seconds with 9 queries