4 ms·

I see nothing wrong with this. If I'm wealthy and I can pay money for a service for risk management and the benefits outweigh the costs it makes sense. Private

I see nothing wrong with this. If I'm wealthy and I can pay money for a service for risk management and the benefits outweigh the costs it makes sense. Private security vs police? Sure. Private jet vs common carrier? Sure. Private firefighter vs public? You guys lose your minds over that? I don't see what is wrong paying for extra protection. It's like owning a very expensive car and paying for extra insurance in case the person who hits you has no insurance.

jakemal 7y ago
"Private yachts sold to California's wealthy." The horror!
sailfast 7y ago
There is nothing wrong with it in principle and I agree with your sentiment. That said, a broader issue manifests when the following perceptions occur alongside your purchase: 1. Public perceives the rich do not pay enough taxes and have continued to pay money into politics to keep it this way 2. Firefighters working for municipalities do not make enough money due to public funding shortages (see above taxes) 3. Firefighters go to work for Insurance companies / the rich instead of working for municipalities because of said pay disparities 4. There are not enough firefighters to protect my home because they are working for private companies after I paid to train them. End result perception: That rich person is getting preference because they are rich, when it should be that all citizens should have equal access to public services like a fire engine to put out flames - at least according to our typical societal norms when there isn't an out of control blaze. "I'm rich so I can pay for it" is totally right, but only works until an angry public burns the house down. A better long-term solution that provides public services for more citizens at a higher level of reliability is one potential outcome.
- kauffj 7y ago
  https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/firefighters-dont-fight-fires.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/fi...
  - sailfast 7y ago
    Quite right. As my post mentioned quite explicitly the issue here is about perception, not about the reality. Second, it's difficult to talk about compare national fire levels when you're talking about localized forest fires and the need to surge to protect. If your house is burning, but your rich neighbor is fine, you start asking questions. So what you get is "my house is burning and the mayor is saying there aren't enough resources to save it but only the rich guy got the mitigation" - people start asking questions. The solution is (like all things) somewhere in the middle - raise the level of public services in a way that allows for better mitigation / protection (which requires money), so that the reasons for misperception are no longer there (the house doesn't burn).
WhompingWindows 7y ago
How about this -- suppose all the public school teachers who taught children how to succeed can't afford private fire-fighters, yet their students who benefited from their lowly remunerated services can? I think the visceral nature of fire and being protected from it by wealth (earned or unearned) is much more upsetting and visible than a jet to transport you.
- noirbot 7y ago
  But doesn't that just mean that the public fire fighters are essentially getting "free" assistance from the private crews? If anything, this is rich people paying to help prevent the spread of fire, which is a good thing for everyone, and lets the public resources go towards helping those who can't afford the private services.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    That's true if their efforts do protect the whole region and not just their local rich neighborhood.
someonehere 7y ago
I pose this question to people when articles like this come up. If you were wealthy, would you do something like this? In this case, if you were wealthy, would you pay to have extra protection for your home by hiring private firefighters? Almost willing to bet their answer would always be yes.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  I'm wealthy and I spend my money on charitable giving instead of building and defending an ostentatious mansion. When the revolution comes I hope that means my back won't be up against the wall, and my house won't be torched by revolutionary warriors.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  Yeah, I could draw this same analogy about gun control or anything else. That's a very narrow action-reaction paradigm though. I'd argue the outcome is because we don't directly see the effect of the poor who lose their home (and if we do see poor people "it was probably their own fault"). If you could observe the outcome directly (which would require one to dive into the specific subject), I'd wager you'd have either compassion, or you'd be among the exceptional 1% of psychopaths in the world. By keeping it abstract and non-personal, we are able to cope with such tragedy.
AlexB138 7y ago
I think a very tiny fraction of people with socialist sympathies get riled up by this, which is exactly the point. This is just another drop in the "engagement via culture war" bucket.
gdubs 7y ago
Inequality has risen dramatically over the past few decades. It’s not so much whether the wealthy should be free to pay more for an extra service — it’s a fear that at some point, unless you’re wealthy, you won’t have access to the infrastructure people assumed was equal for everyone. This may be a slippery-slope argument — but cases like water in Flint come to mind.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jakemal 7y ago

"Private yachts sold to California's wealthy." The horror!

sailfast 7y ago

There is nothing wrong with it in principle and I agree with your sentiment. That said, a broader issue manifests when the following perceptions occur alongside your purchase: 1. Public perceives the rich do not pay enough taxes and have continued to pay money into politics to keep it this way 2. Firefighters working for municipalities do not make enough money due to public funding shortages (see above taxes) 3. Firefighters go to work for Insurance companies / the rich instead of working for municipalities because of said pay disparities 4. There are not enough firefighters to protect my home because they are working for private companies after I paid to train them. End result perception: That rich person is getting preference because they are rich, when it should be that all citizens should have equal access to public services like a fire engine to put out flames - at least according to our typical societal norms when there isn't an out of control blaze. "I'm rich so I can pay for it" is totally right, but only works until an angry public burns the house down. A better long-term solution that provides public services for more citizens at a higher level of reliability is one potential outcome.

kauffj 7y ago
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/firefighters-dont-fight-fires.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/fi...
- sailfast 7y ago
  Quite right. As my post mentioned quite explicitly the issue here is about perception, not about the reality. Second, it's difficult to talk about compare national fire levels when you're talking about localized forest fires and the need to surge to protect. If your house is burning, but your rich neighbor is fine, you start asking questions. So what you get is "my house is burning and the mayor is saying there aren't enough resources to save it but only the rich guy got the mitigation" - people start asking questions. The solution is (like all things) somewhere in the middle - raise the level of public services in a way that allows for better mitigation / protection (which requires money), so that the reasons for misperception are no longer there (the house doesn't burn).

WhompingWindows 7y ago

How about this -- suppose all the public school teachers who taught children how to succeed can't afford private fire-fighters, yet their students who benefited from their lowly remunerated services can? I think the visceral nature of fire and being protected from it by wealth (earned or unearned) is much more upsetting and visible than a jet to transport you.

noirbot 7y ago
But doesn't that just mean that the public fire fighters are essentially getting "free" assistance from the private crews? If anything, this is rich people paying to help prevent the spread of fire, which is a good thing for everyone, and lets the public resources go towards helping those who can't afford the private services.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  That's true if their efforts do protect the whole region and not just their local rich neighborhood.

someonehere 7y ago

I pose this question to people when articles like this come up. If you were wealthy, would you do something like this? In this case, if you were wealthy, would you pay to have extra protection for your home by hiring private firefighters? Almost willing to bet their answer would always be yes.

lonelappde 7y ago
I'm wealthy and I spend my money on charitable giving instead of building and defending an ostentatious mansion. When the revolution comes I hope that means my back won't be up against the wall, and my house won't be torched by revolutionary warriors.
Fnoord 7y ago
Yeah, I could draw this same analogy about gun control or anything else. That's a very narrow action-reaction paradigm though. I'd argue the outcome is because we don't directly see the effect of the poor who lose their home (and if we do see poor people "it was probably their own fault"). If you could observe the outcome directly (which would require one to dive into the specific subject), I'd wager you'd have either compassion, or you'd be among the exceptional 1% of psychopaths in the world. By keeping it abstract and non-personal, we are able to cope with such tragedy.

AlexB138 7y ago

I think a very tiny fraction of people with socialist sympathies get riled up by this, which is exactly the point. This is just another drop in the "engagement via culture war" bucket.

gdubs 7y ago

Inequality has risen dramatically over the past few decades. It’s not so much whether the wealthy should be free to pay more for an extra service — it’s a fear that at some point, unless you’re wealthy, you won’t have access to the infrastructure people assumed was equal for everyone. This may be a slippery-slope argument — but cases like water in Flint come to mind.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]