Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges • Hacker News Board

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#51

Post by hypeit » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:26 PM UTC

whalesalad wrote: post #29

JKCalhoun wrote: post #2

All I see in the article is the discussion of "profits". I would think the PR department could come up with something about "trying to keep costs competitive for our customers" or something like that. Instead they're telling California and Florida customers to take a hike ... along with 11% of their employees. When is the last time we heard a company enact a company-wide, 50% cut in officer's salaries and a freeze on…

Why are people surprised when a company operates in its’ own best interest? Why should we expect anything else? Insurance companies are just about moving dollars around and hedging risk. Being perturbed about this is like being mad about your dog barking at the mailman. If someone said I’m going to start free climbing the tallest buildings in the world - but I need insurance - the company will tell you to get lost be…

> An insurance company is not a charity it’s just a profit engine.

Odd then that so many forms of insurance are mandated by the government.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#52

Post by supportengineer » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:27 PM UTC

candiddevmike wrote: post #32

criley2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to be that person, but this is the future. Because of climate change, more of our country is barreling towards "uninhabitable". It's not Farmers fault that we released too much CO2 and now wildfires and hurricanes are way worse and getting even more worse. If the people of California and Florida want insurance so they can build matchbox houses in high risk disaster zones, then they can start a public insurance…

RE: this is the future, what is the reasoning behind the sudden (post COVID it seems) squeezing of profit from everywhere? Seems like every business is pushing profit over employees or customers. Price gauging, layoffs, all of it without any reason besides "more profit". Why the sudden influx of greed?

Greed was held back by a sense of collectivism; as that has eroded since the 1960’s, it’s become a self-sustaining feedback loop.

No one looking out for me means I’d better screw everyone else over first and “get mine”.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#53

Post by cscurmudgeon » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:27 PM UTC

sydbarrett74 wrote: post #11

whynotmaybe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2014 https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nintendo-boss-cuts-salary-save-job... 2019 https://www.hcamag.com/us/news/general/ceo-sets-70k-minimum-...

Those are 'rarer than hen's teeth' exceptions that prove the rule.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-taking-pay-cuts-prevent...

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#54

Post by londons_explore » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:28 PM UTC

nvahalik wrote: post #19

londons_explore wrote: post #7

I really don't think an insurance company should have 24,000 employees. Even 240 employees sounds like too many to me. They serve 10 million customers. Nearly every customer should be able to use an entirely automated online form for signing up and for making insurance claims. Claims should be settled entirely with the customer uploading a 1 minute video showing what damage occurred, plus the bill to fix it. Assume 1…

> Nearly every customer should be able to use an entirely automated online form for signing up and for making insurance claims. Claims should be settled entirely with the customer uploading a 1 minute video showing what damage occurred, plus the bill to fix it. Ah yes, the perfect recipe for fraud! > Assume 1 claim per customer per decade Herein lies the problem in some parts of Florida/California. If Florida gets hu…

> Ah yes, the perfect recipe for fraud!

There are a few things you can do to dramatically reduce the fraud risk.

Take the video of the damage immediately and through your own app. Now you can confirm with decent certainty the where/when of the incident and stop double-claims. You can also refuse to pay for any damage unseen in the video. No more "I hurt my back" type claims weeks later - unless you said your back hurt at the time, it isn't going to be covered.

Next, you require the user upload all the receipts they are claiming before you'll pay them a cent. This means that users will typically repair stuff 'on the cheap', rather than using very expensive repair/rebuild services that they'd use if they knew for sure insurance would be paying.

Third, you either pay avery claim in full, or not at all. If you find any evidence of fraud, you don't do a partial payout.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#55

Post by justin66 » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:29 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #27

justin66 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Claims should be settled entirely with the customer uploading a 1 minute video showing what damage occurred, plus the bill to fix it. And your plan for when clients are unwilling or unable to conform to your idealized filing process would be what? Simply don’t reimburse them? Or when they’re unsure what’s covered ? Or have some other question that’s urgent and not covered by an online FAQ? It’s a highly regulated i…

If you write it in the policy "To make a claim, you must upload a 1 minute video via our app or website, together with photos of all receipts you want us to reimburse", then you are totally within your rights to deny all claims where the customer can't/won't follow your process.

If your insurance company existed in a place without laws and insurance regulators, that is a methodology you could impose on people in order for them to receive what they’ve already paid for. And good on you for ignoring the part about what to do about all those pesky customer questions, particularly the ones that come after a disaster you’re on the hook for.

The whole “why haven’t they considered that they could be more efficient ?” train of thought is tiresome. Admit that it’s a business you know literally nothing about and move on.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#56

Post by orangepurple » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:29 PM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #9

Retric wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors for one, I get annoyed at overly generous executive pay because it costs me money.

> overly generous executive pay ... it costs me money But how can you prove that? The very justification for generous executive pay is that you couldn't get most people to do that role because it's so demanding and without these particular people, revenue/profits would tank. (slight exaggeration, but I don't think by much).

I would buy that argument if entire American industries in question weren't mired by regulatory capture making competition impossible

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#57

Post by gorjusborg » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:30 PM UTC

FredPret wrote: post #21

Retric wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors for one, I get annoyed at overly generous executive pay because it costs me money.

It'd be great for investors if the top positions were paid mostly / entirely in stock. That way we can entice a good CEO with high pay and our interests will still align.

I'd also be great if we collectively admitted that one person (no matter who they are) can determine the success of a large organization of people.

Today, we compensate them like they are doing the lion's share of the work.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#58

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:30 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #30

hutzlibu wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when you have claims involving million, you probably want to spend more then 10 minutes investigating a claim. Insurance fraud is a real thing. Otherwise I agree, there is likely a lot that can be done to make the processes more efficient.

Sure. But the vast majority of claims are for $300 to fix a dent in a car. It just doesn't make sense to spend more than 10 minutes on them.

Deductibles mean you can spend 0 minutes on those.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#59

Post by brookst » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:34 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #46

JKCalhoun wrote: post #2

All I see in the article is the discussion of "profits". I would think the PR department could come up with something about "trying to keep costs competitive for our customers" or something like that. Instead they're telling California and Florida customers to take a hike ... along with 11% of their employees. When is the last time we heard a company enact a company-wide, 50% cut in officer's salaries and a freeze on…

What they are really saying is that they can’t effectively model the risk. Say you were an insurer… would you want to take risk for Florida hurricane losses knowing what we know? If we want a functional insurance market in these places, we need a student loan type solution - make the Feds the reinsurer and have the insurance company mostly administer the policy.

You’re quite right, but I’m not sure it’s a practical solution. While those are populous states, as someone not living in either it is not super attractive to start subsidizing people who choose to live in increasingly disastrous zones.

Yes, flood insurance and some other examples, but my objection isn’t based on platonic ideals of equally bad policy for everyone, it’s based on pragmatic ideals of not extending bad policy more widely.

Let the market price insurance. At most I might support a mandatory tax on profits that is set aside to cover exceptional future losses, kind of FDIC-like.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#60

Post by BugsJustFindMe » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:34 PM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #9

Retric wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors for one, I get annoyed at overly generous executive pay because it costs me money.

> overly generous executive pay ... it costs me money But how can you prove that? The very justification for generous executive pay is that you couldn't get most people to do that role because it's so demanding and without these particular people, revenue/profits would tank. (slight exaggeration, but I don't think by much).

> The very justification for generous executive pay is that you couldn't get most people to do that role because it's so demanding

That's also my justification when I eat a second bowl of ice cream. Surely nobody else will want this ice cream. I guess I'll just have to eat it myself.