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

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

#211

Post by Fnoord » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 7:12 AM UTC

someonehere wrote: post #138

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 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.

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.

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

#212

Post by david38 » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 1:12 PM UTC

fooqux wrote: post #165

noirbot wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not the most altruistic thing. If the problem is that their new expensive house has inadequate firefighter coverage, helping fund a closer one is very much in their interest. Having the locals fund it after you've helped get it off the ground and the charitable write-offs you could probably get aren't either. If they were funding a fire station in a third world country where they have zero business interests, th…

I disagree. If my house is in danger, I’m going to protect it, no the whole town. I already pay taxes for the town’s coverage but I cannot support everyone.

I’m pretty sure wealthy owners have done the math and know exactly where altruism begins.

Now if all my neighbors want to put a lot more money into the pot, then we can talk.

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

#213

Post by david38 » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 1:15 PM UTC

hindsightbias wrote: post #200

fooqux wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Building codes have already made it so safe for the masses that fire departments often have a tough time justifying their own existence.

Everyone is already doing basic mitigation unless they are breaking the law.

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

#214

Post by Robotbeat » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

xadhominemx wrote: post #205

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…

$1m/mile is off by like a factor if 10. PG&E thinks it costs $3-5m/mile to bury _distribution_ lines: http://www.pgecurrents.com/2017/10/31/facts-about-undergroun...

Good argument for burying PG&E, then, and starting over.