Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

foxbusiness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 214 posts

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#141

Post by seneca »

post_break wrote: post #93

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 cas…

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.

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#142

Post by jcranmer »

School-Cotton wrote: post #112
robohoe wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're supposed to report your online shopping when you do your taxes here every year.

Which no one does, so it’s irrelevant.

I do it (because I buy so little online). Also, Illinois (and maybe other states) published tables saying "if you don't want to calculate it, pay this amount instead."

Most states are now imposing sales tax on online retailers, so the point is pretty much moot now.

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#143

Post by gumby »

Ottolay wrote: post #92
erfderd wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We pay sales tax. What's so special about VAT vs. sales tax? Unless you are arguing for a federal sales tax, which OK sure federal tax is great, except it doesn't pay for local services. Also, now you also have to argue about the regressive nature of sales tax in general.

A few differences: - VAT is applied to business to business transactions. Sales taxes are just applied to consumer transactions. - Sales taxes are applied to total amount of sales. The amount of VAT that the user pays is on the cost of the product, less any of the costs of materials used in the product that have already been taxed. - Since value is not generally created in a second hand sale. (Unless the item is rest…

> VAT is applied to business to business transactions. Sales taxes are just applied to consumer transactions.

This is not true. The final user pays the sales tax. So if a company buys a bolt and uses it to make its product: no tax. If they buy bolts and build shelves to hold inventory: pay the tax.

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#144

Post by bigj0n »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #104
inanutshellus wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another suggestion for a non-clickbaity title: Insurance Companies do Preventative Maintenance on High-Value Assets But yes, this feels like ... class-baiting or something. This headline is everywhere, made to rile up folk for.... what?

> This headline is everywhere, made to rile up folk for.... what? People love having a strawman to tear down (or occasionally build up). They just don't know they love it. The news makes money off engagement so that's what they optimize for and outrage click-bait is very good at doing that job.

You really think this headline is engineered for people to click because they're outraged, not because they agree?

Articles and headlines based around classism are everywhere these days- and they arent marketing towards people who dont buy that classism is a huge problem. There are an extremely large number of americans who eat this shit up as truth.

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#145

Post by nimajneb »

michaelt wrote: post #120
inanutshellus wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another suggestion for a non-clickbaity title: Insurance Companies do Preventative Maintenance on High-Value Assets But yes, this feels like ... class-baiting or something. This headline is everywhere, made to rile up folk for.... what?

Some people consider that, when the rich are hiring a duplicate of a public service, it proves the public service is not fit for purpose.

This was my first thought :P

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#146

Post by Mountain_Skies »

bogartmyjoint wrote: post #32
ianai wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could also upgrade some infrastructure in the process, like running fiber. Might not be free but worthwhile.

And perhaps even begin building a superconducting grid ad for once in PG&E's history, doing something that was pro-active rather than reactive.

Is there a superconducting grid anywhere on a large scale? Last time I read up on it, the experiments by Detroit Edison were a failure due to an inability to keep the coolant from escaping because it used liquid helium. This was probably a decade ago. Have there been advances since then?

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#147

Post by kauffj »

sailfast wrote: post #124
post_break wrote: post #93

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 cas…

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. Fire…

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/fi...

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#148

Post by snagglegaggle »

patentatt wrote: post #118
xadhominemx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a big difference between burying distribution lines and transmission lines. It’s transmission lines that have caused the most destructive fires in California and those are indeed too expensive to bury.

Does anyone know if transmission lines can be buried? Some high voltage DC can be in the hundreds of kV, is there a limit to what can be buried in moist ground even remotely efficiently? You’d need a good amount of electrical insulation, but also thermal conductivity (I assume these lines heat up?). Any experts here?

The issue is more with burying AC as I'm aware, the ground takes energy out by interacting with the magnetic field. With DC there is only a static field and less parasitic loss and you can add enough insulation. There shouldn't be appreciable heat generation in either.

Consider the fact that we lay oceanic cables.

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#149

Post by [deleted] »

maxerickson wrote: post #133
michaelt wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people consider that, when the rich are hiring a duplicate of a public service, it proves the public service is not fit for purpose.

If the purpose is "protect homes built in wildfire prone natural areas", the public service shouldn't exist, so there you go.

[deleted]

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#150

Post by snagglegaggle »

jgon wrote: post #69
ossworkerrights wrote: post #6

Amusing how anyone suggesting burying powerlines underground is immediately pushed back by "it's expensive" know it alls. Wondering if power-cuts like 3rd world countries enjoy are preferable over a slight increase in power supply costs, and wether impotence is more desirable over action bEcAuSe iT's eXpEnSivE.

My good friend is an engineer whose job has been to work on transmission line construction projects for several utilities including our local one. He just finished testifying at a court case because the utility was being sued by a group of homeowners for running the lines above ground rather than burying them. His testimony was based around the fact that on average the cost to bury lines is roughly 10x more expensive…

Is the cost related to the rarity of buried power lines?

Consider doctor testimony that used to be given for deaths while under anesthesia. "It's normal" and "it just happens." Luckily juries didn't listen and anesthesiologists were forced to reconsider their daily practice.

Post reply on HN