Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by fooqux » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 2:19 PM UTC

noirbot wrote: post #130

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.

I think I agree, but I don't see that as an indictment on the system or the folks doing supplemental hiring. Plenty of people have home security systems, or if you're rich/important enough, hire a bodyguard or private security. That doesn't mean the police isn't fit for service, it just means that the police have to care about everyone, and sometimes your personal risk profile is different than the average of everyon…

But it would be even better for everyone if the well-off person spent those resources on additional public fire fighters. Maybe a new (closer) fire station, better trucks, more full-time fighters to staff it, etc. Work with the local government to help keep it going after an initial cash infusion.

That said, I have no idea what the cost difference would be here, and I'm aware there are other potential negatives. I was just pointing out there are more options on the table, ones that would benefit both parties even more.

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

#152

Post by School-Cotton » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #142

School-Cotton wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, I stand corrected. Almost no one does.

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

#153

Post by chewz » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

Marcus Crassus used to run private firefighters in Rome. When there was a fire his units had been assembling at selected properties and waited why Marcus had been negotiating with the property owner. Only when the deal was made and Crassus purchased the property firemen started extinguishing fire. Hence the fire sale...

> The first ever Roman fire brigade was created by Crassus. He took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department, by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire, if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground. After buying many properties this way, he rebuilt them, and often leased the properties to their original owners or new tenants. [1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus

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

#154

Post by gdubs » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

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…

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.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

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

#156

Post by hirundo » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 2:31 PM UTC

rvense wrote: post #20

slashdev wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 effic…

> 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.

> 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.

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

#157

Post by noirbot » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

fooqux wrote: post #151

noirbot wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I agree, but I don't see that as an indictment on the system or the folks doing supplemental hiring. Plenty of people have home security systems, or if you're rich/important enough, hire a bodyguard or private security. That doesn't mean the police isn't fit for service, it just means that the police have to care about everyone, and sometimes your personal risk profile is different than the average of everyon…

But it would be even better for everyone if the well-off person spent those resources on additional public fire fighters. Maybe a new (closer) fire station, better trucks, more full-time fighters to staff it, etc. Work with the local government to help keep it going after an initial cash infusion. That said, I have no idea what the cost difference would be here, and I'm aware there are other potential negatives. I wa…

Potentially, but just because people aren't doing the 100% most altruistic thing all the time doesn't mean they should be shamed for doing something that seems, at worst, neutral to everyone else.

"What if rich people gave away all their money to causes I support" is almost always a valid position, but one that doesn't really help advance any discussion of the merits of any other action that's more viable.

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

#158

Post by dsfyu404ed » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

bigj0n wrote: post #144

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

Do you think the HN crowd is clicking this headline because it is something they like to see? Sure, some may be but I would feel very safe betting money that more here fall into the "outraged" group than the "existing beliefs confirmed" group.

We are having this discussion is because this is a rare instance where the headline needed to confirm the beliefs of one side and outrage the other side happen to be the same headline.

>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 we talking Fox News specifically or US media in general? If Fox News then sure. If media in general then I disagree, there's other outlets that cater to the other side of the class coin.

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

#159

Post by chopin » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #143

Ottolay wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>If they buy bolts and build shelves to hold inventory: pay the tax.

At least for Germany even that is not true. As a business all VAT payments are refunded (Vorsteuerabzug).

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

#160

Post by sailfast » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

kauffj wrote: post #147

sailfast wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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).