Note that the opposite calculation applies if you have (enough) money.
One day, some years ago, I wrote a Facebook post something like. "That's interesting. The sound of water which woke me was in fact water pouring from the flat above into the bathroom. Those of you who've always said I should have insurance now get the last laugh".
It turns out that the damage was relatively minor except to walls, ceilings and carpets which were - at the time - insured by the building owner, so, I think I spent less than a grand on some re-decorating and it would have been even less if the upstairs neighbour (who needed emergency plumbing etc.) had actually done her paperwork since that's one incident and one insurance claim excess.
But the reason I was so calm about it was that I've done the arithmetic years earlier, if my stuff is destroyed I have to buy new stuff, using money, which I have, whereas if I carry insurance I have to pay the premiums every year, also using money, which includes a healthy profit for the insurer.
Now, many people have no choice because in reality a bank owns their home, they pay a mortgage and the bank wants no chance of you walking away from that so it insists you also buy insurance. But I don't have a mortgage, I paid cash, and so I don't need to carry insurance.
This a really edge case example of the widely true but counter-intuitive observation that being poor is expensive. It isn't at all surprising that the FT would rather blame the poor for their circumstances than help them. Very on brand.
I have made the same calculation regarding a form life insurance, which only pays in case of death. Which in my jurisdiction is a weird product, which makes sense, if you have a little bit to lose, so you are above the minimum guaranteed by society, but you are not already above the point where the effects you described kick in.
What makes the calculation even nicer if you are well-off enough to not have to buy it: If you actually put the money into your portfolio instead, each year you do not need it, the advantage increases further through compound interest, so at some point it literally pays for itself, while the insurance premiums would stay exactly the same.
One day, some years ago, I wrote a Facebook post something like. "That's interesting. The sound of water which woke me was in fact water pouring from the flat above into the bathroom. Those of you who've always said I should have insurance now get the last laugh".
It turns out that the damage was relatively minor except to walls, ceilings and carpets which were - at the time - insured by the building owner, so, I think I spent less than a grand on some re-decorating and it would have been even less if the upstairs neighbour (who needed emergency plumbing etc.) had actually done her paperwork since that's one incident and one insurance claim excess.
But the reason I was so calm about it was that I've done the arithmetic years earlier, if my stuff is destroyed I have to buy new stuff, using money, which I have, whereas if I carry insurance I have to pay the premiums every year, also using money, which includes a healthy profit for the insurer.
Now, many people have no choice because in reality a bank owns their home, they pay a mortgage and the bank wants no chance of you walking away from that so it insists you also buy insurance. But I don't have a mortgage, I paid cash, and so I don't need to carry insurance.
This a really edge case example of the widely true but counter-intuitive observation that being poor is expensive. It isn't at all surprising that the FT would rather blame the poor for their circumstances than help them. Very on brand.