I find this study a bit odd. They say that automobile insurance rates continue to get more affordable, yet I saw another study today which claimed that California is the only state where auto insurance has gotten cheaper since 1989. Seems like some conflicting news.
Why exactly do you see reason to doubt this study if one other study said CA got cheaper. The study you’re referring to looked at expenditures. This study looks at affordability. Is it better to account for prices (not adjusted for inflation) only when discussing affordability? Or to account for prices relative to income (which does adjust for inflation)?
Pick your poison. This one makes more sense, to me.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I find this study a bit odd. They say that automobile insurance rates continue to get more affordable, yet I saw another study today which claimed that California is the only state where auto insurance has gotten cheaper since 1989. Seems like some conflicting news.
James,
The authors splice together figures to make their point. Time period manipulation is the key.
James and Thomas,
Why exactly do you see reason to doubt this study if one other study said CA got cheaper. The study you’re referring to looked at expenditures. This study looks at affordability. Is it better to account for prices (not adjusted for inflation) only when discussing affordability? Or to account for prices relative to income (which does adjust for inflation)?
Pick your poison. This one makes more sense, to me.
Bob