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

181–190 of 214 posts

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

#181

Post by dehrmann »

Robotbeat wrote: post #168
patentatt wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Absolutely they can be buried. They must be insulated, but that's not particularly expensive. There are thermal limits, as you mentioned, but that simply requires appropriate engineering. It costs $1 million per mile (roughly) to bury transmission lines. PG&E has about 18,000 miles of transmission lines. That's about $18 billion to bury the lines. Sounds like a lot, but... ...the estimate price of these multi-day bla…

> the estimate price of these multi-day blackouts is on the order of $1 billion per blackout

But that's not the cost to PG&E. PG&E (or the state) would have to find a way to get some of that somewhat hidden opportunity cost.

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

#182

Post by JKCalhoun »

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.

It's worse than that. When the wealthy take their money to private rather than public institutions they de-value the public institutions — begin to question why their tax money should pay for them at all.

That would be fine if the wealthy didn't have an outsized influence on our laws.

And then of course for the rest of the country that can't afford private fire, private schools....

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

#183

Post by godshatter »

patentatt wrote: post #111
palisade wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost never weigh in on political stuff. But, F * that. Do you want to be able to never afford anything? Because, that's a good start. What we really need to do is balance the budget by cutting back on the quantity and expensiveness of existing programs. The government needs to optimize. We are spending too much. Which are dirty words no one wants to hear or perform.

You’re right that VAT is regressive and the middle class would bear the brunt of it, but I encourage you to consider other ways to address the issue. “Cutting spending“ is almost always code for “cutting spending on stuff the middle class and poor need,” which only pits workers against workers. Rather than die in a circular firing squad, how else could the shortfall be explained? Look into stagnant wages, wealth ineq…

Not the parent poster, but we should probably start with our biggest outlays, and work down from there. I'm assuming that's military spending and entitlement programs. If I'm wrong, we can start with whatever the two largest outlays actually are.

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

#184

Post by sgc »

rayiner wrote: post #127
erfderd wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're arguing for an increase of our sales tax. That's different than saying we don't pay sales tax! Now, I don't disagree that a mechanism that tames American consumption would be good, and is also counter cycle to the economy. But the question remains unanswered: How about the effect of sales tax on people and families at the margins [0]? 20-25% sales tax is a lot for them. A sales tax rebate check at the end o…

A VAT is different than a sales tax. And families at the margins would be better off with the increased social services we could provide with a European-style VAT, than the pennies we could collect by fighting to tax corporations more than they do in Europe. It’s a middle class cop-out. The American middle class says they want to help those at the margins, but they don’t want to pay 25% VAT on MacBook Pros. They’re o…

There are more solutions than a high VAT, and since it is a regressive tax, it is actually a bad solution. The fact that some countries with high VAT use the funds better than other countries use their tax income does not make it a good tax. Of course corporate income tax can never solve all tax shortfalls, but it is still a reasonable piece of the puzzle.

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

#185

Post by Retric »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #163
Retric wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate taxes are low in most countries today, but they used to be a huge source of revenue in the US: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/corporate-income-... The advantage of corporate taxes is they collect money from foreign investors which would otherwise leave the US. Lowering corporate taxes requires increases US taxes so it can lower them for foreign wealth funds etc.

Well, if those foreigners aren't using our services why are we taxing them?

The companies are using our services, which indirectly benefits these investors. Media companies for example benefit from US enforcement of copyright law. Similarly enforcement of contracts and private property, plus all the little things that allow the US to be such a prosperous society.

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

#186

Post by anonuser123456 »

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.

People should be allowed to purchase the services they want and not purchase the ones they don't. So maybe some people prefer infrequent power outages at a cheap rate to reliable but expensive power.

It's not like there aren't other solutions; generators, batteries etc.

FFS with the pressing need to decarbonize energy you're upset about people not being able to handle a few days a year of intermittent power?

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

#187

Post by gambiting »

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…

But you could put in/donate millions of dollars into your local fire station, and there is still no guarantee that they will come and save your house when it's on fire, because maybe someone else needed help first so they are all occupied. You could buy another 20 firetrucks and the problem still could happen. Sure, it's a great thing to do for the community, but from a personal point of view, I'd like to have both a functional public service and a guarantee that there are people on standby to help me in a fire(I mean, how is that different than a home alarm, which I am sure many of us not-so-rich people have? When the alarm triggers, the security company sends someone over to have a look before calling the police, so in a way you are already replacing public service with a private one for your own benefit)

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

#188

Post by Trisell »

I see a lot of people talking about the privatization of firefighting and the future. In this case there is a big difference between the two types of firefighting that is being talked about.

1. The first type of firefighting is your traditional city structure firefighting departments. These are the ones we see most of the time in the movies(Backdraft, Ladder 49). These are government funded by local and municipal taxes. They traditionally provided structure and medical services to a city. While the firefighting portion of these departments has stayed public the medical(ambulance) services have been heavily privatized for years. Due to the large migration we have seen of people wanting to live closer to nature, wildland Urban Interface firefighting has become a service that these traditional structure departments have stepped up to provide as they have expanded their boundaries to provide services to the ever increasing number of homes that have been built outside of the traditional city landscape.

2. Wildland firefighting has traditionally been paid for and managed by the Federal Government. Last I saw around 40% of wildland firefighting resources are privately owned. This includes fire engines, water tankers, showers, food caterers, hand crews(20 man crews that dig fire line in an attempt to contain the fire), tree fallers(loggers who are brought in to fall dangerous trees), air tankers, and helicopters. This particular part of firefighting has been privatized for 20+ years and the Federal government shows no signs of changing this trend anytime soon.

There is also a lot of talk of people leaving the structural "public" fire departments to go private. In my experience the trend is actually the opposite. Private firefighters are generally significantly underpaid compared to their government counterparts. When I was working for the Federal government 15 years ago, I was making a base wage of $15-$20 an hour, if I went out on a fire I got $2 an hour hazard pay for the entire day. If I went over 40 hours in a week I then was paid time and a half and anything over 80 was double time and a half. If I got sent out on a fire for a 14-21 day tour I would work 16 hour days for 14-21 days straight and just be raking in the money. My private crew counterparts were making somewhere between $7-$12 dollars an hour and were only getting time and a half over 40 hours.

Source: Spent 10 years as a volunteer structure and wildland firefighter.

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

#189

Post by jdhn »

godshatter wrote: post #183
patentatt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right that VAT is regressive and the middle class would bear the brunt of it, but I encourage you to consider other ways to address the issue. “Cutting spending“ is almost always code for “cutting spending on stuff the middle class and poor need,” which only pits workers against workers. Rather than die in a circular firing squad, how else could the shortfall be explained? Look into stagnant wages, wealth ineq…

Not the parent poster, but we should probably start with our biggest outlays, and work down from there. I'm assuming that's military spending and entitlement programs. If I'm wrong, we can start with whatever the two largest outlays actually are.

I believe that Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security make up close to 50% of the government's budget. Put military spending in there, and I'd be surprised if it didn't go over 75%.

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

#190

Post by pluma »

tomp wrote: post #126
patentatt wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VAT tax is regressive: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/who-would-bear...

from your link > Exempting, zero rating, or excluding certain essential consumption goods from the tax base (e.g., foodstuffs, medicine, health care) can reduce the regressivity of a VAT. That's what's done in Europe.

Germany has a reduced rate for certain goods but in practice it is pretty arbitrary and mostly the result of lobbying.

Note that even if it were applied entirely consistently and without bias it would still only reduce the regressivity, it wouldn't make it non-regressive.

If a person with low income buys a gallon of milk they pay the same VAT on it as a person with high income would. If they buy cheap off-brand cheese they pay the same VAT rate as they would pay for expensive luxury cheese (except they likely can't afford the latter).

VAT doesn't account for income inequality, it just makes everything more expensive for everyone. Income tax OTOH impacts high income households more than those with low income. At least in theory: in practice income tax (especially in the US) has massively gone down for high income households, again just affecting everyone equally like VAT does.

Post reply on HN