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

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

#191

Post by sivanmz » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

abathur wrote: post #33

I've seen similar variants of this headline floating around, so I don't want to over-blame this Fox outlet for something that's just in the water by this point (I don't recall if they were all on Fox-family outlets, but probably not). That said, the headline seems pretty manipulative... > However, private firefighters are more likely to contract with insurance companies like USAA to offer mitigation services to custo…

I don’t even read Bloomberg and NYT links anymore, just head straight to the discussion and see if this is something I need to get bothered about.

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

#192

Post by Robotbeat » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #181

Robotbeat wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The state already does that through regular, economy-wide taxes. (Maybe this is why it's a bad idea to grant a monopoly to a for-profit company like PG&E that doesn't take into account the externalities of power outages... Then again, Texas' very deregulated but non-monopoly ERCOT seems to do pretty well. So either state-owned OR deregulated may be optimums compared to PG&E...)

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

#193

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #182

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.

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....

[deleted]

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

#194

Post by zbyte64 » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 4:43 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.

Wake me when the tax code and justice system is blind to class.

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

#195

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 4:57 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…

The federal appellate has ruled [0] that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone in particular. SCotUS ruled in similar cases [1] [2] that cops just don't have to lift a single finger if it would save your life.

That does mean that the police isn't fit for service. You hire a bodyguard and/or private security firm because you do actually need someone working for you whose duty is to protect your person and/or property. Most people with something to protect just buy insurance or a dog or a firearm, but the rich pay more for more active measures, such as monitored home security systems, or full-time on-site guards.

It doesn't take much of a stretch to realize that public firefighters likewise do not have a duty to protect your house, specifically, against fires.

Hiring private is absolutely an indictment of the inadequacy of the publicly funded protective measures. And once someone has secured a private solution, they have no further interest in fixing or funding the public solution, in the same way that people who send their kids to private schools stop caring about the public schools.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

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

#196

Post by ergothus » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

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.

...? How?

I mean, I know I have plenty of confirmation biases reacting to this headline (generally in the opposite direction), but outside of the headline, I don't get the above conclusion.

If X service has Y service competing with (or being bought in conjunction with) X, then X isn't worthwhile? I have to be missing something, because that doesn't pass the smell test.

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

#197

Post by unclesams-uncle » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

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?

Because the US can. The US capital markets are still the best in the world. Investors put their money into the US market because the returns are better than in most places and the US legal system protects investors.

The US withholds 30% of all dividend payments to foreign investors (although tax treaties can effectively reduce this amount).

They can do this because there's enough foreign demand for US stocks. When the day comes that the US is no longer the most attractive place for stock market investors, then perhaps the US will look at changing the withholding tax to bring in more capital.

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

#198

Post by turk73 » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

austhrow743 wrote: post #29

supercanuck wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

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

#199

Post by turk73 » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #78

supercanuck wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's a free market, if the government makes a better offer, they'll go work for the government instead of privately.

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.

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

#200

Post by hindsightbias » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 5:31 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…

It would be far, far better if every able-bodied person performed basic fire prevention mitigation on their property. It would be far better for those replacing their roofs to use fire-rate shingles, or for county/city codes to mandate improvements. The well-off can pay someone to do that, and can afford to live in environments where the new normal is >75 mph winds.

I doubt any amount of public investment can make it safe for the masses, short of long-term acceptance of blackouts being the new normal.