Private Equity Finds a New Source of Profit: Volunteer Fire Departments

Posted by 7402 21 hours ago

Counter69Comment121OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by raw_anon_1111 20 hours ago

I’m the last person to defend PE companies. I saw first hand what they were like when I was responsible for integrating acquisitions software. But there seems to be a lot more at play. Taxpayers too cheap to fund infrastructure. The article calls out fundraising drives needed to keep equipment up and running and training.

Why are firefighters volunteers anyway instead of getting paid?

Why should any company create software that they can’t do at a profit - ie rewriting software for a new federal standard?

Every problem is downstream of people wanting government services and not wanting to pay for them.

Comment by neves 55 minutes ago

I’ve always thought volunteer firefighters are one of the coolest parts of American life. Neighbors stepping up to protect each other and their communities, even putting themselves in danger sometimes. That kind of teamwork and courage is what really makes a country strong.

Comment by toast0 20 hours ago

> Why are firefighters volunteers anyway instead of getting paid?

In urban/suburban areas, you need firefighters based on number of population, more or less, which isn't too bad to pay for, more people means a little bit from everyone adds up.

For rural areas, you need figherfighters based on area. If you had the right per capita fire equipment and personnel, they'd be spread so thin they may as well not exist. Volunteerism at least gets you affordable personnel, but you still need to fundraise for equipment and operational expenses.

Edit: also, the call volume is very low. Your properly staffed fire department would be nearly always idle. With volunteers on call, they can just go about thei usual things, and if a call comes in, they can respond from where they are.

Comment by kevin_thibedeau 18 hours ago

> the call volume is very low

I lived near a volunteer station in a New Jersey town where it is routine to use a siren (same as used for tornadoes in other parts of the country) to alert the volunteers to check in. It went off frequently every day.

Comment by Interesco 15 hours ago

I can't speak for the department near you, but in many departments, particularly towns/more rural areas, the fire department/fire station responds to both medical and fire calls. It very well may be the majority of responses were medical in nature. For example, 70% of NYFD call volume is medical [1].

[1]: https://www.firerescue1.com/fdny/should-nyc-split-ems-from-f...

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

I’ve got an idea:

Every city and county belongs to a state with a broader tax base. Every state is a part of the richest country in the world. I’m sure you see where I’m getting at here.

But rural America calls that “socialism”.

Comment by giantg2 19 hours ago

The equipment is already paid for with grants. Most people don't see a justifiable reason to have full-time services when the number of incidents is low.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

The article said that they are having to do fundraisers for equipment maintenance. Eventually equipment needs to be replaced.

The very article said that even the software needs to be rewritten for new federal standards. Should that be free?

Comment by LunaSea 19 hours ago

Rich how? What's the budget deficit again?

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

But yet we find money for the largest military in the world - and much of that goes to military equipment and bases that military leaders say they don’t need and for tax cuts.

How much money do you think it would take to fund the shortfall for every rural fire department?

Comment by acdha 14 hours ago

Deficits are a policy choice, not an inevitability. The budget was balanced at the turn of the century but Republicans under G. W. Bush decided that meant they could cut taxes, especially for the rich. They did that again for both Trump terms, before COVID. Unlike the financial crisis or pandemic, there was no emergency driving those decisions and the massive debt increases were entirely voluntary.

Comment by morsch 19 hours ago

For what it's worth, volunteer firefighters are very widespread in many -- most? -- European countries. It's not an artifact of cutthroat capitalism. In France, 83% of firefighters are volunteers. In Germany, 97%. They don't need to fundraise for equipment, though, the government pays for it, in true socialist fashion.

Comment by tialaramex 18 hours ago

Yeah, 60% of the engines in the UK have what it calls "On-Call Firefighters". These aren't full timers, they usually have a "real" job but when their phone says they're needed they go fight fires. They're trained basically the same, but their main income is from that "real" job.

On the other hand, fire hazard continues to reduce, which means that to an ever greater extent the full time crews can deliver what's needed even in semi-rural communities like where I grew up. Their current plan is close the station nearest to me (which was "On-call" staffed) permanently.

Comment by NekkoDroid 16 hours ago

> Yeah, 60% of the engines in the UK have what it calls "On-Call Firefighters". These aren't full timers, they usually have a "real" job but when their phone says they're needed they go fight fires.

My old physics teacher was one of them. Very chill guy, that was outside of the classroom a non-negligable amount of time (though often for different reasons), but still way one of the best teachers I had.

(It was always fun when he wrote "minimum" on the board. Everyone wrote in cursive, but his writing literally just made it look like lines going up and down)

Comment by jrs235 19 hours ago

Right?! I'm with you. And if rural America doesn't want socialism let them pay their far share for true fire protection costs and increased insurance premiums.

Comment by nacozarina 19 hours ago

Volunteers getting together to serve the needs of their own community is thoroughly socialist, you are talking in circles.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

Yes a bunch of poor people in a rural area trying to raise money from a bunch of other poor people doesn’t seem to be working out too well…

But in Johns Creek where I use to live where the median household income is $170k. Firefighters aren’t volunteering

https://www.indeed.com/cmp/City-of-Johns-Creek/salaries/Fire...

I am arguing that in the US as a nation, no firefighter should have to “volunteer” that’s where the state and federal government should step in.

I’m more okay with taking my tax dollars as a person who makes a good living to help rural areas and I would vote for a politician to help them before they would.

Comment by Gud 17 hours ago

In Switzerland volunteer firefighting is common.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 16 hours ago

So is universal healthcare, free college education and a safety net.

Are firefighters in Switzerland doing bake sells to pay for maintenance on their equipment like the people in the cities in the article or does the government do it?

Comment by Gud 16 hours ago

"universal healthcare" is funded by insurance.

No, they purchase their equipment funded by taxes.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 15 hours ago

Insurance isn’t tied to your job in Switzerland and firefighters aren’t doing bake sales for equipment. That’s my point.

Comment by 19 hours ago

Comment by giantg2 19 hours ago

Is voluntary self-organized service socialist, communist, libertarian, or something else?

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

How well is that working out? Poor people trying to buy equipment made by people who expect to get paid?

Guess how many fundraisers I heard about when I lived in Johns Creek GA - with a median income of $150K?

Comment by _DeadFred_ 18 hours ago

What are you talking about? Johnsons Creek has a population of 80,000 people making it larger than 98% of US cities. I live in a town of less than 10,000 surrounded by a county larger than Rhode Island that has huge forest fires at least every decade since the end of the ice age. And we are the heavy populated county in our area.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 18 hours ago

I am saying that we shouldn’t be okay with living in a country where people live in the middle of nowhere should have to do bake sales to make sure that their one fire truck remains up and running while John’s Creek can afford to pay their firefighters $80K a year and don’t have to do that

When we have state and federal government. Would you be okay with a volunteer police force?

Comment by yesb 19 hours ago

> Why are firefighters volunteers anyway instead of getting paid?

Government structure and basic economics. Fire depts are mainly funded by local taxes (property, sales) so low-risk rural places can't afford a fully staffed fire dept

>Why should any company create software that they can’t do at a profit - ie rewriting software for a new federal standard?

Where was it stated that any of these acquired companies were unprofitable? It's heavily implied that these PE firms are simply maximizing profit through anti-competitive behavior

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

Again why is that? Teachers are funded by local and state taxes and (did?) get federal grants.

The article mentioned that these same firefighters are having to do fundraisers for equipment maintenance

I’m honing in for the software that what they cancelled would have to be completely rewritten to comply with new federal standards.

Would everyone be happier if this was funded by YC hoping the company would be acquired by a larger company and then you see a post about “Our Amazing Journey” when it’s discontinued?

Comment by duxup 18 hours ago

Teachers get used every school day, all day. Firefighters in areas where there are a low number of events very much not so.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 18 hours ago

What are your feelings about being on call as a software developer because software incidents don’t often happen at night? Would you expect to be paid for it? Or at least a higher than $0 salary?

Comment by duxup 16 hours ago

Do you feel like these volunteers are being taken advantage of or something?

I doubt they do... they all have jobs and lives otherwise, they can simply not do the thing.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 15 hours ago

Compared to the firefighters where I use to live making $80K a year in Forsyth?

Comment by duxup 15 hours ago

Full time job?

Comment by NordSteve 20 hours ago

I'm guessing you don't live in a rural area in the US.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 20 hours ago

I grew up in South GA and my family still lives there. I got the hell out of dodge the week after graduating from college in 1996.

I said in another reply, I’m all for the state and the federal government helping rural America where their own tax base isn’t strong enough. I’m also for universal health care that would help rural areas far more than me. I wouldn’t complain about my taxes paying for it.

It’s rural America that keeps voting for local, state, and federal politicians that put them in this place.

Comment by gottorf 19 hours ago

> It’s rural America that keeps voting for local, state, and federal politicians that put them in this place.

In my experience, not everyone's primary policy goal is to ensure that as much taxpayer money as possible gets redistributed in their favor.

Of course, this isn't to say that the problem you described (of people wanting government services but not wanting to pay for it) does not exist, but I find that to be applicable broadly, not just to rural America.

Comment by SoftTalker 19 hours ago

Agree, I live in (fairly) rural area and most of the people out here don't want much more from the government but maybe roads to drive on, and to be left alone.

Comment by nullocator 18 hours ago

Counter-point: I live in a kinda rural area and the people out here want the government to enforce their religious, cultural, and misinformed beliefs on everyone else everywhere else, this is typically a higher priority than roads or public safety.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

Are you saying they are going to refuse Trump’s bailouts for farmers?

Are you saying they don’t want hospitals near by because that means they would have to accept government help? I’m sure even providing basic infrastructure is coming from funding from sources outside of their community

Comment by SoftTalker 19 hours ago

I don't know any real farmers. Have a few neighbors with small herds of cows but that's not their only or even primary source of income. I try not to talk politics much.

People live out here knowing full well that the nearest hospital is 30 minutes away and if they need to call an ambulance it's probably going to be at least 15-30 minutes, maybe longer, before it shows up.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 18 hours ago

But you do know human nature. Do you think conservative farmers who are struggling are going to refuse to take government funds?

If someone is having a heart attack are they going to refuse to go to hospital that is backed by the federal government?

Comment by SoftTalker 18 hours ago

I doubt they would refuse government money, IDK.

It's kind of how I feel about Social Security. I'm not going to refuse it, especially since I have paid into it my entire working life. But I'd rather it didn't exist, and I know it isn't sustainable.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 18 hours ago

That isn’t true either. Worse case if nothing changes, there would need to be a 20% cut in benefits. I am 51 and have modeled that in my retirement projections

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

Yes it’s not there goal until they go hungry and they are homeless.

Then they beg the president for handouts because they can’t sell their food they are producing.

It’s only socialism when it helps someone else.

Comment by pessimizer 19 hours ago

Their choice is between two private clubs who both cut services when in power, and are both taking huge amounts of money from private equity.

The Democrats spent the beginning of the 2016 cycle all pretending to be for universal health care (literally the only reason why Buttigieg and Harris got on stage), then spent the rest of the cycle dishonestly campaigning against it while fixing a primary. As soon as Bernie lost, health insurance and healthcare stocks had their highest stock price bump in history.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

I agree with your opinions on government funding, I just find it gross when it's used as an excuse to put the blame on the powerless. The powerless are not powerless because they choose to be, they're powerless because they are restrained by the powerful. Not only is the information they receive about the world restricted and their educations propagandistic, but if they voted for what the powerful didn't want, their vote would be ignored.

On the other hand, you've been convinced to blame the powerless for the crimes of the powerful, so I don't know how you're any less of a sucker. I guess you're wealthier than they are, so maybe you're a support system for the people doing the suckering.

edit: I had to add the last, because this type of argument is something I consistently hear from people who are paid to do the exploiting. If you're a thief, you figure out a way to blame the people you steal from.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 18 hours ago

Yes because in 2020 when middle of the road Biden barely eked out a win against Trump, I’m sure Bernie would have won.

Bernie’s ideas were way too left field for me and I consider myself to be a bleeding heart capitalist pig - ie let companies make money, tax them and use the money to provide a safety net. Also take away the idea of your insurance being tied to your employment

Comment by cindyllm 18 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by lkbm 19 hours ago

I do.

We have paid police, because we want law and order. We have paid dump/collection center workers, because you need a place to take trash. We have paid teachers and school staff, because we want a good education for our kids. We have paid road maintenance workers, because it's really helpful to have properly maintaind roads. We have paid librarians, because libraries are one of the core community centers in the area. We have paid animal control workers because rabies is scary. We pay for ambulance service because sometimes you need medical attention asap.

And we have volunteer fire fighters, because stopping fires, in a rural, wildfire prone area is, what? Optional? Just a side gig? Something you do just for fun?

A big part of the confusion people have is that "volunteer" fire departments often include pay. It's not a full-time job, but they at least get paid for their calls. That's not always true, though, and it's weird. It's an artifact of history that our different layers of government have divvied up basic services amongst themselves in a way that leaves fire fighting as a local concern that may or may not involve paid professionals, while the sheriff and local police will be paid professionals, the roads will be maintained, and the school will have teachers, and principals, and custodians, and people running the cafeteria, and so on.

Why do we not have "volunteer police force"? Because we treat it as a full-time position for career police officers. It's weird that this one, very critical service uses "volunteers," while most of the others are full-time, paid positions, and I find it confusing and weird, despite having grown up in rural NC, just outside a town of under a thousand, and now live at the other end of rural NC, outside the limits of a different town of under thousand people.

Comment by giantg2 19 hours ago

"Why are firefighters volunteers anyway instead of getting paid?"

Rural areas don't have the population, revenue, and incident frequency to justify full-time services.

Comment by unethical_ban 18 hours ago

Not mentioned in your comment is the part where the same greedy PE bought up multiple competing pieces of software in this niche.

Comment by ggfdh 19 hours ago

> too cheap

Too poor

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

The other half is stop voting for politicians on the state and federal level who explicitly try to dismantle every program that is meant to help them.

But they are more concerned with fighting “wokism” and “socialism”

Comment by cjbarber 20 hours ago

What are the systems that need to change such that individual PE firms don't have incentive to do this?

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points

Comment by Blackthorn 20 hours ago

We could ban the firms.

Comment by mhurron 20 hours ago

Honestly how? What law could be written that would ban PE firms and lookalike businesses that would hold up to scrutiny.

No one with a brain likes what PE does, but really, what do they do that's illegal as opposed to people finally realizing that capitalism is essentially evil?

Comment by master_crab 20 hours ago

This isn’t really true. A lot of the laws that exist now are written to encourage private equity.

For example, you could start with fixing the privileged tax status from carry.

Comment by acdha 20 hours ago

PE depends on favorable tax loopholes and a lot of acquisitions depend on them being able to do things like buying a company with a ton of loans which they then saddle the acquired company with or stripping assets before going bankrupt. All of that depends on arbitrary legal structures and protections which could be rebalanced to favor more productive business models.

Comment by underlipton 19 hours ago

Right. Either you directly regulate activity, or you adjust incentives. If you suggest one, detractors say you can't do that, you have to do the other thing, and then work as hard as possible to block your efforts to do the very thing they suggested you do. That's because they don't want things to change at all. But that's obviously not an option, so I tend to suggest trying both and seeing what sticks.

Comment by jennyholzer2 20 hours ago

> capitalism is essentially evil

even though nearly every post on this website makes this point, the commenters here really do not like it when you state this explicitly.

Comment by marky1991 20 hours ago

This argument seems to be a) intentionally provocative and intending only really to ruffle feathers, not actually put a coherent argument forward

And b) about on par with saying "water is evil" because if you drink too much of it you'll die.

Comment by Nasrudith 20 hours ago

It doesn't help that the people who say that prove an understanding of capitalism is about as thin as a single layer of varnish and their collective ideas for workable alterations would fit on a single index card after it was already ripped up by hand.

Comment by llbbdd 20 hours ago

Painfully true and somehow it's everywhere on this forum. To these people, capitalism and markets and money are all the same thing, and the only finite resources in the universe are those whose distribution is gatekept by the evil, evil capitalist overlords.

Comment by pseudalopex 16 hours ago

> To these people, capitalism and markets and money are all the same thing

Many more capitalists than anti capitalists claimed this in my experience.

Comment by llbbdd 14 hours ago

Everybody's experience is different. I've found experientially that anybody who can actually define and describe these things with any degree of seriousness is, at least, aware of the resource constraints that make up the real world and have opinions that at least run in approximate sync with reality, which definitionally excludes them espousing real Redditor crap. I'm willing to engage with anti-capitalists who have at least put in the work to understand capitalism, but it seems like there's not much overlap between "understands" and "disagrees" for that segment.

Comment by pseudalopex 13 hours ago

> anybody who can actually define and describe these things with any degree of seriousness

You meant true Scotsmen?

Comment by llbbdd 9 hours ago

No, and in case you stopped reading partway into my comment, this type of useless gotcha counts under Redditor crap. I don't think it's controversial that understanding something is a pathway to criticizing it appropriately. The average anti-capitalist cannot begin to describe exactly what it is they hate, which is in my opinion one of the defining valuable features of capitalism - that many people can benefit from it without understanding it one lick, and can in fact ineffectually hate it while benefiting from it.

Comment by itsanaccount 20 hours ago

they do not.

what gets me is trying to make the argument that market economies are not necessarily capitalist economies. it seems plain over time that capitalism works to destroy markets. As an American I'm pretty pro market, but that means at this point I'm an enemy of capitalism.

Which seems wild to what I was taught growing up.

Comment by immibis 20 hours ago

This is the website of a bunch of rich capitalists who got rich by doing capitalism. Of course you can't call the owners of the website evil on that website.

Comment by underlipton 19 hours ago

Of course you can. They just get really mad about it.

Comment by immibis 13 hours ago

You actually can't. They hide your post and ban your account.

Comment by websiteapi 20 hours ago

It's strange that this software isn't actually provided by the government to begin with. Quickly checking eso.com, most of their use cases are governmental to begin with.

what I don't get is the government collectively would save money just making it themselves.

Comment by CodingJeebus 19 hours ago

Markets have essentially prevented this from being a reality. Government can't pay anything close to competitive with the private market, if they did it would be an easy target for "government waste", and even if they could, why take a job that could be axed during a budget cut? The people doing the firing could justify it by claiming an outside vendor would be cheaper anyway.

Comment by SoftTalker 19 hours ago

Governments are generally very bad at software, or any kind of highly technical project that the legislators really don't understand.

I know several people in tech who are volunteer firefighters. Why don't they form an open-source project? The software described in this article doesn't sound too complex; at a couple of points I was thinking "just use a spreadsheet."

Comment by logsr 19 hours ago

looking at ESO's homepage their main pitch is around NERIS compliance (https://www.usfa.fema.gov/nfirs/neris/) so it looks like this is a case of regulatory capture forcing fire departments to buy new software. An obvious solution here is that any government mandated information system must come with an open source implementation that guarantees compliance.

Comment by ahupp 19 hours ago

Do they need software? Presumably the volunteer firefighters 30 years ago didn’t have this and did fine. Plenty of volunteer organizations are built on Airtable or some spreadsheets.

Comment by anotherhue 20 hours ago

Stallman was right. Thankfully this seems like it should be relatively easy to replace. If anyone knows a friendly hacker collective to point this way...

Comment by raw_anon_1111 20 hours ago

So tell me why should I spend my time helping cities whose population are too cheap to fund necessary infrastructure? The article pointed out that firefighters are being forced to fundraise just to get their physical equipment fixed.

These same “rural departments” are in areas that claim to hate “big government” and are anti tax and aren’t willing to fund essential services and vote for national politicians who are defunding programs that could help them.

Yes I would be all in favor of my federal tax dollars being redirected to rural areas whose taxpayers can’t fund firefighters so they don’t have to fundraise to buy equipment.

Comment by scheme271 20 hours ago

This isn't cities, these are fire departments in rural counties that may have a few thousand people living in it at most.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 20 hours ago

And then we should be helping them on the state and federal level. I have replied a couple of times here that I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help them.

Unfortunately, they overwhelmingly vote for politicians that believe just the opposite on the state and federal level.

Comment by iamnothere 18 hours ago

You shouldn’t be stereotyping rural people like this. Rural communities differ wildly in population and political leanings. On average they are older, whiter, and Republican voting, but this is shifting. Many small communities that were dying out are being revitalized as artist colonies and tourist zones, and many active farming communities are gradually becoming more Hispanic. Framing urban vs rural as red vs blue plays into the hands of the divide-and-conquer strategy that elites use to prevent the population from successfully pursuing radical change.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 18 hours ago

How many rural communities in the United States by population didn’t vote overwhelmingly Republican?

Suburbs of Austin is not what people call rural America

Comment by iamnothere 17 hours ago

If you look at a precinct-level map of election results you’ll see speckles of blue everywhere, as well as areas that were narrowly split. Those speckles represent real communities with people living in them. You can’t just write them off.

There’s also small towns or clusters of homes in the middle of nowhere where most of the residents disagree from the communities surrounding them. They don’t necessarily have enough votes to make a dent, but they also exist.

Assuming people’s politics or worth based on where they live leads to unpleasant outcomes.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 17 hours ago

Whose writing them off? I have repeatedly said that I have no issues with taxpayer funded assistance on the federal and tax level. But you can’t help people who are more interested in “owning the libs” and “fighting wokism”.

Comment by iamnothere 16 hours ago

I was more responding to the notion that rural = Republican and therefore bad/hopeless. I think it’s a mischaracterization that needs to die before we can make real progress towards reform in this country.

Rural people face different challenges than urban people, although there’s some overlap. Finding agreement on the overlap—while attempting to solve the unique urban and rural problems in parallel—would be more effective than the tug of war that we have now. US politics has developed a winner-take-all attitude that’s clearly not working.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 16 hours ago

So exactly how am I as a Black man suppose to find “overlap” with people who deify Charlie Kirk and claim the only reason I got ahead was “DEI”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk...

Even though I’ve been coding as a hobby or professionally for 40 years - and have done my bid in BigTech?

How is a gay/trans person suppose to find common ground with someone who literally thinks the country is going to be consumed in fire just because it’s legal for them to get married?

How is Latin American going to find common ground with someone who thinks they are taking their jobs, at the same time are not working getting welfare and lowering test scores and keeping them from affording housing? Oh yeah abs it’s only because of H1B visas that rural American can’t get one of them good tech jobs.

The only reason they are opposed to “socialist” programs is because there is an off chance that someone who doesn’t look like them might benefit.

Oh and by the way, I had a house built in Forsyth county and lived there for 6 years and moved to Florida and downsized when I knew I would be working remotely and after my youngest graduated. Yeah this Forsyth County.

https://youtu.be/WErjPmFulQ0?si=MVrJUwjZ2DfonHjw

Those folks haven’t gone anywhere. They have been overrun by more of the Romney/Bush type conservatives moving in.

You still see in Facebook groups where they are opposed to a Hindu temple nearby. But not opposed to a large church.

Myself, my wife, my (step)son and his (white) fiance still get disapproving looks there (where my son still lives) that we don’t get when they visited us in Orlando.

It’s not about a difference of “needs”. Yet I as a decently well off tech person continuously vote for policies that would help them and not me.

They are fundamentally opposed to a governmental system that works for everyone.

Comment by iamnothere 15 hours ago

Do you think those Hindus building the temple in the middle of nowhere are voting Republican? What about Hispanic farmers who are getting harassed due to their ethnicity? What about rural LGBT people? It certainly sounds like you have some common ground with these people.

There’s rural people of all backgrounds (including straight white folk) who feel that the system has failed them and there’s no point in voting. Roughly 40% of eligible people don’t vote. That’s a lot of votes.

Lumping in a potential constituency with your opponent is a loser’s game. It just turns away and demoralizes potential allies.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 15 hours ago

Because of the electoral college unless you are in a battleground state. It doesn’t matter if you vote on the Presidential election. If I lived in Mississippi would it really make a difference if I voted Democratic for President? We have seen twice in my lifetime where the popular vote was different than who got elected.

You could say the same for the heavily gerrymandered house districts.

An ally in Forsyth county or Mississippi doesn’t help.

Comment by iamnothere 15 hours ago

So because those voters won’t be able to help you, even though they want to, you feel justified in lumping them in with your opponents or pretending they don’t exist? Aren’t their lives hard enough as it is? Don’t you think they could help in other ways, like fundraising or volunteering?

It’s a mistake, in my opinion, just as it’s a mistake to ignore that non-swing states can and have flipped unexpectedly.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 10 hours ago

Which states that are red and not battleground states have the chance of flipping? I see Texas and maybe Florida. If you get a good candidate. Not a Kamala or Bernie type a middle of the road slightly left White guy (said as a Black guy).

Comment by 14 hours ago

Comment by xienze 19 hours ago

> And then we should be helping them on the state and federal level.

That’ll just lead to people on the opposite side of the spectrum (politically and in terms of being more urban) asking why their tax dollars are going towards a bunch of rednecks living in the middle of nowhere and destroying the earth with their heavily car-dependent lifestyles. _They should move to the city if they want a fire department! Otherwise, pay for it yourself or quit yer bitchin!_

> Unfortunately, they overwhelmingly vote for politicians that believe just the opposite on the state and federal level.

Perhaps the reason is because the people they “should” be voting for, according to you, are tied to a lot of social policies that these rural folks find deeply disagreeable. In a similar vein, if the 2024 Republican president campaigned on true free healthcare and massive taxes for the rich, you wouldn’t chide Democrat voters for not voting for that candidate on account of his social policies, now would you?

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

If the Republican politician campaigned on universal healthcare a larger social safety net etc I would be all for it.

But all that being said, I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat that said they wanted free health care and also bring back segregation and laws against miscegenation. The first affects me and everyone in my family and the second would affect my son and my soon to be daughter in law.

Democrats are not saying they want universal healthcare only for blue areas.

Comment by appreciatorBus 19 hours ago

If you voluntarily choose to live at such low densities that the cost of fire protection per person is too high to pay, I struggle to understand why that is a public or government problem. Either accept that you’re preferred density is difficult and uneconomical to service and you’ll have to pay a lot in tax or private fees or whatever, or go without.

On the other hand, if you involuntarily live at low densities because of gatekeepers in the city who have prevented housing from being built for the last dozen decades or so, then we should fix that so that anyone who wants to live in a city with excellent and cheap fire protection can do so.

Importantly, neither of these have anything to do with capitalism or private equity.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

Who needs farmers anyway? Alternatively, they could all move to the big city and farm there.

My issue is not that rural America is poor. My issue is that there vote for politicians whose explicit goal is not to help them. But that’s okay as long as the politicians “fight the woke”.

Comment by appreciatorBus 19 hours ago

I agree with your broader political point re: voting preference. I also don't understand why this is a thing.

Re: farmers - are farms themselves a big farm risk? I can imagine farm workers living in nearby towns requiring fire service, but not the farms themselves or farm owners. I can see the case for public funding of fire service for such towns, but density still matters - if 1000 farm workers each live on their own acre (~42,000 sqft), it's going to cost more to provide fire service than they live on a 1,000 sqft lot, or in a 1,000 sqft apartment in a 4 storey building. Most of North American land use will require them to live much less densely than they might have otherwise, driving up the cost of infra & fire service.

Comment by iamnothere 17 hours ago

Farms usually have large quantities of dry and flammable goods, whether it’s fertilizer, fuel, hay, straw litter, or dried harvested crops. Fields of dry corn or wheat could be flammable as well. Rural forests can also have wildfires which quickly get out of control and require massive intervention, so it’s better to put them out early.

These places use volunteers because fire is rare, but they still need some kind of fire service just in case. They often get their expensive equipment from grants, it’s the labor that’s provided by the community.

Comment by insane_dreamer 16 hours ago

> So tell me why should I spend my time helping cities whose population are too cheap to fund necessary infrastructure?

Why should anyone spend their time doing open source projects that might be adopted by organizations who can't afford it.

> Yes I would be all in favor of my federal tax dollars being redirected to rural areas whose taxpayers can’t fund firefighters so they don’t have to fundraise to buy equipment.

Absolutely, me too. But in the meantime, until you/we are able to convince the government to redirect your tax dollars, this is something that is in your/our capabilities to do something about.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 15 hours ago

The vast majority of the value that accrues from open source work isn’t organizations that are using it for free. It’s corporations.

> Absolutely, me too. But in the meantime, until you/we are able to convince the government to redirect your tax dollars, this is something that is in your/our capabilities to do something about.

And those communities are not only voting for, they are cheering on politicians who are defunding the departments who can help them the most.

Comment by _DeadFred_ 18 hours ago

My county is the size of Rhode Island and is covered in forest. We have huge wildfires all the time. We also established our own tax funded ambulance district and are willing to tax ourselves when needed even though we are a very Red area. We have volunteer firefighters, just like red state France (78% of their firefighters are volunteer), just like red state all their funding goes to the military Germany.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 17 hours ago

And this is the way it should be - not having bake sales like the article mentioned.

Comment by unethical_ban 18 hours ago

Tell me why you should spend time on a kernel, or a driver, or a blog generator, or anything else.

Your point "states and federal government should pay for this" is a valid opinion, but it is muddled with your attitude that anyone offering to write open source software to support emergency services is a fool.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 18 hours ago

Well, the overwhelming percentage of open source contributors to Linux are from corporations. I bet you will see the same for most popular open source projects

Comment by unethical_ban 17 hours ago

That didn't answer my assertion.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 17 hours ago

Well would the fact I have never written a single line of code since 1992 that wasn’t directly in service of my getting a degree for the next four years or getting paid for the last 30, tell you how I feel about free labor?

I was a hobbyist assembly language programmer for six year prior to going to college and did some BASIC.

Comment by unethical_ban 16 hours ago

Clarifies things.

You've spent more time criticizing open source development and struggling fire departments than you have spent criticizing predatory capital buying up every competing piece of software in order to raise the price.

Even if the state and federal government funded firefighter management software, this is still a story of predatory PE.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 16 hours ago

Predatory buying up of software is not the reason firefighters are having bake sales to maintain equipment - also stated in the article. Do you think companies wouldn’t be interested in making more money if it weren’t for PE?

And I assume you are okay with what YC does?

Comment by logsr 19 hours ago

despicable attitude completely detached from reality. volunteer fire fighting services provide critical public services across broad sparsely populated areas of the United States and those volunteer services benefit everyone by preventing wild fires that threaten everyone. this kind of PE activity is parasitic and directly threatens lives and property by diminishing emergency response capacity. bad business to be in. it will get shut down very quickly.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

My attitude is “despicable” by my saying “take my federal and state tax dollars and help communities so they can pay for firefighters and equipment”?

Comment by logsr 19 hours ago

they aren't "your" federal and state tax dollars. if you want to privately provide welfare for PE out of your own pocket, go ahead, but leave the public's tax dollars out of it.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago

You did see the parts of the article where the same fire departments aren’t able to pay for equipment like fire trucks and training firemen?

Would you be okay if the software companies were charging the same amount and not funded by PE? What if they were funded by YC?

Comment by hypeatei 19 hours ago

Why wasn't this software open source from the get-go? The writing seems to indicate that it was initially developed with altruistic intentions, but I don't see that at all. If the original developers wanted fire departments to have an affordable, lasting solution then proprietary software and VC funding seem like the wrong direction.

Comment by xeonmc 20 hours ago

Are the PE firms by any chance involved with someone by the name of Count Olaf?

Comment by chkaloon 18 hours ago

I'm always suspicious of articles like this. Having been part of a company that was the target of a few NYT articles, there is always more to the story. And parts that are just flat out wrong, but not being an expert or in the industry you just need to take their word for it and believe their anecdata.

Comment by insane_dreamer 16 hours ago

This is the type of need that open-source software exists to fill.

Why doesn't anyone start an open-source project that all fire departments can adopt? Yes, you still might need some paid support, but it wouldn't be anything close to what the PE vultures are charging.

Comment by OutOfHere 19 hours ago

Obviously the problem is relying on commercial software in the first place. The software in question needs to be open source. It needs to be developed and managed by multiple fire departments for everyone's use.

Comment by MangoToupe 20 hours ago

We're just a couple steps away from reanimating Crassus at this point—if one interest controls both this sort of software and a REIT.... I suppose you might argue he's already achieved immortality as "capital", but that feels a little bland of an observation.

Anyway, https://archive.is/p7B8l

Comment by renewiltord 19 hours ago

Fire Departments are the number one rent-seekers in the US so this is more like a cockroach being parasitized by a fungus. FARS regulations, in particular, are obvious crony capitalism. Elevator standards are less so, but still suspicious.

Comment by gregsadetsky 20 hours ago

Disgusting!

Comment by blindriver 20 hours ago

I’m tired of living in a world where everything is financially engineered and those sociopathic money-hungry deviants use every trick in the book to turn all of us into life long subscribers.

What can we do about this?

Comment by ericd 20 hours ago

Seems like someone motivated could make an open source alternative to ESO’s lineup and make it impossible for them to make a monopoly in that niche. I wonder if you put out a call to all volunteer fire departments, if they have enough devs collectively to oust the aholes.

Comment by SoftTalker 19 hours ago

You're complaining to the wrong people here. The conventional advice for any software startup here is "raise your prices."

Comment by azemetre 20 hours ago

You tax them enough so they can't use money to buy power and have to rely on organizing like us poors to enact change.

Comment by drowsspa 19 hours ago

We have gambling addicts and the sociopaths they worship deciding the fate of mankind...

Seriously I can't see any benefit in this large scale financial engineering

Comment by underlipton 19 hours ago

There is a rather infamous old tactic to fight back against this. When Brown v Board of Education made segregation illegal in public schooling, many white families started private academies, avoiding regulations by stripping everything they could from the public systems and transplanting them into private ones. Obviously heinous, but perhaps a path forward here.

People decry extreme, scorched-earth approaches, except it seems to work mighty well for conservatives. You're just not allowed to do it if you're "woke", I guess. (Who says? Do it anyway.)