5 ms·

You've got the wrong way of looking at this. The government is unwilling to hire these people, so they're available to private individuals. If the government we

by eloff 7y ago

You've got the wrong way of looking at this. The government is unwilling to hire these people, so they're available to private individuals. If the government were winning to fork out tax dollars for private firefighters, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. The great thing about capitalism, for better or worse, but mostly better is that you or any one other person does not get to decide what constitutes efficient use of resources. Everyone decides that for themself based on self interest and the market ends up magically having this sort of collective intelligence that allocates far better than any alternative system ever has.

supercanuck 7y ago
> The government is unwilling to hire these people, so they're available to private individuals. Show me the evidence this is happening.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- austhrow743 7y ago
  Your very own comment said "lack of supply of fireman". Are you implying that there are open fireman positions that no one is applying for? If so your market is incredibly different from the one I know. Here in Australia a job as a fireman is very hard to get.
  - supercanuck 7y ago
    There are open positions. Whether qualified applicants are applying, I don’t know. https://mobile.twitter.com/CALFIRE_Careers https://mobile.twitter.com/CALFIRE_Careers
  - turk73 7y ago
    The job of fireman is also extremely hard to get in the US, too, because there is 100% nepotism. You have to be related to a fireman to become a fireman. You can become a volunteer or part-time paid fireman in some areas, but the full time roles require connections. I have lived in three states, it's been the same in each state. The US South is the worst as far as nepotism goes. If you're not from a southern state, it is very difficult to practice law there as well. There are tight controls on all kinds of things that you wouldn't expect. I really don't wish to create a firestorm on here, but your odds of becoming a billionaire in the US are not very good unless you are well aligned with certain factions. Which factions those are I will not say because I will just get accused and the conversation will die. Be that as it may, it does not change the reality that any random individual can't just work hard and attain great wealth, moderate wealth yes, great wealth, no.
- eloff 7y ago
  It's a free market, if the government makes a better offer, they'll go work for the government instead of privately.
  - turk73 7y ago
    It is most decidedly NOT! If I were to start a private fire fighting firm here, the first thing that would happen is I would have public union firefighters assaulting me or my family members. The second thing that would happen is that I would go out of business because it is next to impossible to compete with "free." Taxpayer funded firefighters are a monopoly granted by government, aka not a free market in any sense. Meanwwhile, my city is behind on promised expansions of fire houses and infrastructure. The money went somewhere, though. Just like our school district which keeps needing more and more money but keeps having less and less performance meanwhile. The Superintendent quit/was fired and got a massive buyout clause in her contract to the tune of $500,000 or more and meanwhile kids can't read or do math because of her incompetence. We live in Clown World, that's all I can think.
Traster 7y ago
Step 1: Rich people lobby to lower taxes Step 2: The government can't afford firefighters. Step 3: Rich people use the tax money they've saved to employ private firefighters to only protect their property. Step 4: Poor people are left to die in otherwise controllable fires.
- glogla 7y ago
  Step 5: the land is then used to build luxury housing. (See that England tower fire)
- notyourday 7y ago
  > Step 1: Rich people lobby to lower taxes There are more poor people than rich people so the poor people had to vote for those that lowered the taxes at the expense of the firefighting services, which in turn means that it cannot be that clear cut.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Isn't this the "the poor [in America] see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires" phenomenon?
  - hedvig 7y ago
    Because the media and manufactured consent that gets pushed down on those "more people" surely leads to them making objective educated decisions.
- bogartmyjoint 7y ago
  Step 6: Blame the poor people, then threaten to take away any federal aid for not voting for the GOP.
- xoa 7y ago
  >Step 2: The government can't afford firefighters. I'm sympathetic to #1 on a general level, many (though not all) rich people have lobbied for lower taxes, and/or simply employee tax experts who can take advantage of legal ways to reduce their taxes a great deal. But in this instance at least it doesn't work, California isn't low tax. And your progression further falls apart at #2 because firefighter salaries aren't at the level of "can't afford it" even for California alone, let alone the federal government. California looks to have around a $144 billion budget for the 2018-19 period, and I see from a quick search a Fortune article indicating they had allocated a $442 million firefighting budget, total (which apparently got exhausted, and importantly does represent a sharp upward trend from the previous 5 years, in 2013 they spent $242m). But while a few hundred million more is certainly a lot of money, it's not at the level where it's killing California. And again, California isn't a low tax state anyway. So no, I don't think you're justified here, or at least you'll need more support. There could certainly be more spent from by the public on the level of expense private firefighters represent, and it's not clear that there is any zero sum game here. And I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with multiple levels of response, at the theater and local levels. That's particularly when part of it is preventative, like creating fire perimeters on properties by cutting down and removing dangerous vegetation. That doesn't require the same skills, expense or risk as direct large fire containment but can be a big help. Finally, as with floods there are arguably private properties that the public simply shouldn't be on the hook to defend at all because they're in known very dangerous areas. If someone wishes to expend their own surplus resources on it though that's no different than any other luxury expenditure is it? It is reasonable to debate what balance budget should have in all this, and whether the government should be doing more to invest in better infrastructure up front. For example, from what I can tell from various sources like this one [1] a few billion a year would cover a significant amount of buried HVDC distribution backbone. California apparently has around 26000 miles of high voltage primary lines, and about 240k miles of secondary. Focusing on the primary first it'd probably cost a good $35-55 billion based on what I can find, which is a lot but is the sort of project to be done over time and focusing on the most important areas (going through high vegetation risk spots) first. It'd add up over a decade or two of effort, and blackouts aren't free either. And it might at least be worth it to look into whether there are any economies of scale to be gained or standardization and improvements that can be done to bring the cost down further. Or instead, perhaps it'd be more cost effective to just abandon certain parts of the state, some towns may face the same issue as coastal ones. But I don't think the negative reaction to private individual efforts is justified either, and unnecessarily creates bad feelings not conducive to further work. ---- 1: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Indicative-capital-cost-per-capacity-and-length-for-HVDC-options-The-cost-of-two_fig7_284359690 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Indicative-capital-cost-...
rvense 7y ago
> the market ends up magically having this sort of collective intelligence What if one person had enough resources to pay all firemen to not fight fires at all? The "collective intelligence" of the market has obvious blind spots.
- ctdonath 7y ago
  The number of people willing to be paid to not fight fires is unlimited.
- AlexB138 7y ago
  Then there would be unfilled jobs for firemen, which would increase the wages for firemen, which would prompt more people to move into a career as a firefighter, which would increase the supply of firemen until the jobs willing to pay the new prevailing wage were mostly filled, approximately. That's exactly how pricing signals work. "Firemen" is not a fixed set of people.
- eloff 7y ago
  It's not perfect. But it is better than all the alternatives we currently have. Intelligence does not imply perfection.
- turk73 7y ago
  That's interesting because the US has seen this kind of behavior in the past where moneyed interests simply paid the cops not to enforce the law or paid judges or others in positions of authority to look the other way. It's bribery, though, isn't it? That's not a market based solution, it is a form of corruption. We appear to be living through another Gilded Age where super wealthy individuals can run roughshod over the rest of the population by simply out spending the competition. This is, for example, why the Clintons have never been prosecuted.
- hirundo 7y ago
  > The "collective intelligence" of the market has obvious blind spots. As does the collective intelligence of the voters and the state. Whichever is more, and more consistently intelligent is apparently not obvious.

by eloff 7y ago

supercanuck 7y ago

> The government is unwilling to hire these people, so they're available to private individuals. Show me the evidence this is happening.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
austhrow743 7y ago
Your very own comment said "lack of supply of fireman". Are you implying that there are open fireman positions that no one is applying for? If so your market is incredibly different from the one I know. Here in Australia a job as a fireman is very hard to get.
- supercanuck 7y ago
  There are open positions. Whether qualified applicants are applying, I don’t know. https://mobile.twitter.com/CALFIRE_Careers https://mobile.twitter.com/CALFIRE_Careers
- turk73 7y ago
  The job of fireman is also extremely hard to get in the US, too, because there is 100% nepotism. You have to be related to a fireman to become a fireman. You can become a volunteer or part-time paid fireman in some areas, but the full time roles require connections. I have lived in three states, it's been the same in each state. The US South is the worst as far as nepotism goes. If you're not from a southern state, it is very difficult to practice law there as well. There are tight controls on all kinds of things that you wouldn't expect. I really don't wish to create a firestorm on here, but your odds of becoming a billionaire in the US are not very good unless you are well aligned with certain factions. Which factions those are I will not say because I will just get accused and the conversation will die. Be that as it may, it does not change the reality that any random individual can't just work hard and attain great wealth, moderate wealth yes, great wealth, no.
eloff 7y ago
It's a free market, if the government makes a better offer, they'll go work for the government instead of privately.
- turk73 7y ago
  It is most decidedly NOT! If I were to start a private fire fighting firm here, the first thing that would happen is I would have public union firefighters assaulting me or my family members. The second thing that would happen is that I would go out of business because it is next to impossible to compete with "free." Taxpayer funded firefighters are a monopoly granted by government, aka not a free market in any sense. Meanwwhile, my city is behind on promised expansions of fire houses and infrastructure. The money went somewhere, though. Just like our school district which keeps needing more and more money but keeps having less and less performance meanwhile. The Superintendent quit/was fired and got a massive buyout clause in her contract to the tune of $500,000 or more and meanwhile kids can't read or do math because of her incompetence. We live in Clown World, that's all I can think.

Traster 7y ago

Step 1: Rich people lobby to lower taxes Step 2: The government can't afford firefighters. Step 3: Rich people use the tax money they've saved to employ private firefighters to only protect their property. Step 4: Poor people are left to die in otherwise controllable fires.

glogla 7y ago
Step 5: the land is then used to build luxury housing. (See that England tower fire)
notyourday 7y ago
> Step 1: Rich people lobby to lower taxes There are more poor people than rich people so the poor people had to vote for those that lowered the taxes at the expense of the firefighting services, which in turn means that it cannot be that clear cut.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Isn't this the "the poor [in America] see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires" phenomenon?
- hedvig 7y ago
  Because the media and manufactured consent that gets pushed down on those "more people" surely leads to them making objective educated decisions.
bogartmyjoint 7y ago
Step 6: Blame the poor people, then threaten to take away any federal aid for not voting for the GOP.
xoa 7y ago
>Step 2: The government can't afford firefighters. I'm sympathetic to #1 on a general level, many (though not all) rich people have lobbied for lower taxes, and/or simply employee tax experts who can take advantage of legal ways to reduce their taxes a great deal. But in this instance at least it doesn't work, California isn't low tax. And your progression further falls apart at #2 because firefighter salaries aren't at the level of "can't afford it" even for California alone, let alone the federal government. California looks to have around a $144 billion budget for the 2018-19 period, and I see from a quick search a Fortune article indicating they had allocated a $442 million firefighting budget, total (which apparently got exhausted, and importantly does represent a sharp upward trend from the previous 5 years, in 2013 they spent $242m). But while a few hundred million more is certainly a lot of money, it's not at the level where it's killing California. And again, California isn't a low tax state anyway. So no, I don't think you're justified here, or at least you'll need more support. There could certainly be more spent from by the public on the level of expense private firefighters represent, and it's not clear that there is any zero sum game here. And I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with multiple levels of response, at the theater and local levels. That's particularly when part of it is preventative, like creating fire perimeters on properties by cutting down and removing dangerous vegetation. That doesn't require the same skills, expense or risk as direct large fire containment but can be a big help. Finally, as with floods there are arguably private properties that the public simply shouldn't be on the hook to defend at all because they're in known very dangerous areas. If someone wishes to expend their own surplus resources on it though that's no different than any other luxury expenditure is it? It is reasonable to debate what balance budget should have in all this, and whether the government should be doing more to invest in better infrastructure up front. For example, from what I can tell from various sources like this one [1] a few billion a year would cover a significant amount of buried HVDC distribution backbone. California apparently has around 26000 miles of high voltage primary lines, and about 240k miles of secondary. Focusing on the primary first it'd probably cost a good $35-55 billion based on what I can find, which is a lot but is the sort of project to be done over time and focusing on the most important areas (going through high vegetation risk spots) first. It'd add up over a decade or two of effort, and blackouts aren't free either. And it might at least be worth it to look into whether there are any economies of scale to be gained or standardization and improvements that can be done to bring the cost down further. Or instead, perhaps it'd be more cost effective to just abandon certain parts of the state, some towns may face the same issue as coastal ones. But I don't think the negative reaction to private individual efforts is justified either, and unnecessarily creates bad feelings not conducive to further work. ---- 1: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Indicative-capital-cost-per-capacity-and-length-for-HVDC-options-The-cost-of-two_fig7_284359690 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Indicative-capital-cost-...

rvense 7y ago

> the market ends up magically having this sort of collective intelligence What if one person had enough resources to pay all firemen to not fight fires at all? The "collective intelligence" of the market has obvious blind spots.

ctdonath 7y ago
The number of people willing to be paid to not fight fires is unlimited.
AlexB138 7y ago
Then there would be unfilled jobs for firemen, which would increase the wages for firemen, which would prompt more people to move into a career as a firefighter, which would increase the supply of firemen until the jobs willing to pay the new prevailing wage were mostly filled, approximately. That's exactly how pricing signals work. "Firemen" is not a fixed set of people.
eloff 7y ago
It's not perfect. But it is better than all the alternatives we currently have. Intelligence does not imply perfection.
turk73 7y ago
That's interesting because the US has seen this kind of behavior in the past where moneyed interests simply paid the cops not to enforce the law or paid judges or others in positions of authority to look the other way. It's bribery, though, isn't it? That's not a market based solution, it is a form of corruption. We appear to be living through another Gilded Age where super wealthy individuals can run roughshod over the rest of the population by simply out spending the competition. This is, for example, why the Clintons have never been prosecuted.
hirundo 7y ago
> The "collective intelligence" of the market has obvious blind spots. As does the collective intelligence of the voters and the state. Whichever is more, and more consistently intelligent is apparently not obvious.