Pope thinks... Private firefighters derail.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

At least nobody's been stupid enough to say that it's their fault for not paying their subscription. That I've seen, anyway.

[Ronja]

Then again, if you pay extra each time when they actually have to put out a fire, and you are not very careful with how big the extra compensation is and how it is calculated, you are creating an incentive for the company to want *more* fires, not less, to put out. Incentives steer behavior...

This is not generally a problem, although it does happen from time to time. Among arsonists, firefighters, particularly volunteer firefighters, are among the top suspects, but it's relatively rare, Hollywood notwithstanding.

The "incentive" model, when the percentage of money coming from putting out fires was too big, has already backfired (literally) in Spain and Portugal, where some of the forest fires during the last ten years have been started by firemen. This we know about the fires where it became clear that they were arson AND the culprit was caught, which is not all fires of course. And this was with county and city fire departments - no profit motive from a commercial company, "just" individual firemen's motive to get the fire response bonuses.

Yup, it does happen. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the firefighter is a public or private employee. If they are paid by the fire, rather than a fixed salary, your incentive motive exists. But nothing requires that a salaried firefighter be paid by THE GOVERNMENT. It's just as easy for a private company to pay the firefighter, and there's no more incentive than with a publicly paid firefighter.

Excuse me? According to you now, a private company does not have a profit motive, which influences the leadership/management of said company - really? You have posted countless times praising the motivating power of exactly that profit motive - now it suddenly does not exist?

[Seth]

Then again, if you pay extra each time when they actually have to put out a fire, and you are not very careful with how big the extra compensation is and how it is calculated, you are creating an incentive for the company to want *more* fires, not less, to put out. Incentives steer behavior...

This is not generally a problem, although it does happen from time to time. Among arsonists, firefighters, particularly volunteer firefighters, are among the top suspects, but it's relatively rare, Hollywood notwithstanding.

The "incentive" model, when the percentage of money coming from putting out fires was too big, has already backfired (literally) in Spain and Portugal, where some of the forest fires during the last ten years have been started by firemen. This we know about the fires where it became clear that they were arson AND the culprit was caught, which is not all fires of course. And this was with county and city fire departments - no profit motive from a commercial company, "just" individual firemen's motive to get the fire response bonuses.

Yup, it does happen. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the firefighter is a public or private employee. If they are paid by the fire, rather than a fixed salary, your incentive motive exists. But nothing requires that a salaried firefighter be paid by THE GOVERNMENT. It's just as easy for a private company to pay the firefighter, and there's no more incentive than with a publicly paid firefighter.

Excuse me? According to you now, a private company does not have a profit motive, which influences the leadership/management of said company - really? You have posted countless times praising the motivating power of exactly that profit motive - now it suddenly does not exist?

Of course a private company has a profit motive, and of course it influences leadership and management of the company. So what? Publicly employed firefighters have a profit motive too, as do their unions. That's rather the problem. If profit motive is the thing that drives arson, then it's irrelevant who pays them and your argument is once again debunked. The profit motive exists in both models, just at a different level. The purpose of prohibiting firefighters from being public employees is to subject their wage and benefit structure to the free market forces of competition that will keep the labor costs down for the public and relieve the public of the burden of having to pay for gold-plated pension plans negotiated between public employee unions and government bureaucrats who have motive and incentive to pander to the unions and the firefighters rather than looking to the interests of the public in reducing labor costs and pension obligations.

Arson among firefighters does occur, rarely, and it occurs both in paid departments and in volunteer departments, in part because for most arsonist firefighters it's about the excitement of the fire, not extortion, which is much more complicated and dangerous.

[Seth]

You know, this Libertarian/free market argument really needs to be spun off into its own thread with an appropriate title, as it's rather far afield from the Pope and child abuse.

[Ronja]

The "incentive" model, when the percentage of money coming from putting out fires was too big, has already backfired (literally) in Spain and Portugal, where some of the forest fires during the last ten years have been started by firemen. This we know about the fires where it became clear that they were arson AND the culprit was caught, which is not all fires of course. And this was with county and city fire departments - no profit motive from a commercial company, "just" individual firemen's motive to get the fire response bonuses.

Yup, it does happen. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the firefighter is a public or private employee. If they are paid by the fire, rather than a fixed salary, your incentive motive exists. But nothing requires that a salaried firefighter be paid by THE GOVERNMENT. It's just as easy for a private company to pay the firefighter, and there's no more incentive than with a publicly paid firefighter.

Excuse me? According to you now, a private company does not have a profit motive, which influences the leadership/management of said company - really? You have posted countless times praising the motivating power of exactly that profit motive - now it suddenly does not exist?

Of course a private company has a profit motive, and of course it influences leadership and management of the company. So what? Publicly employed firefighters have a profit motive too, as do their unions. That's rather the problem. If profit motive is the thing that drives arson, then it's irrelevant who pays them and your argument is once again debunked. The profit motive exists in both models, just at a different level. ...

I see one level of profit motive in the firefighters-employed-by-the-government + compensation per fire model: the personal motives of individual firefighters.

I see two or three levels of profit motive in the firefighters-employed-by-private-companies + compensation per fire model: added to 1) the motives of each individual firefighter, 2) the personal motives of shareholders, who therefore require good economic results of the leadership and management. And 3) if persons in the leadership and management happen to be shareholders, too - what then?

Two or three forces pushing in the same direction is more than one. Your view of reality may vary, of course.

[Seth]

Thanks for the spinoff, Ronja!

[Robert_S]

That was me, sorry I mangled it the first time.

I'm out of practice and my coffee is just now kicking in.

[Seth]

The "incentive" model, when the percentage of money coming from putting out fires was too big, has already backfired (literally) in Spain and Portugal, where some of the forest fires during the last ten years have been started by firemen. This we know about the fires where it became clear that they were arson AND the culprit was caught, which is not all fires of course. And this was with county and city fire departments - no profit motive from a commercial company, "just" individual firemen's motive to get the fire response bonuses.

Yup, it does happen. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the firefighter is a public or private employee. If they are paid by the fire, rather than a fixed salary, your incentive motive exists. But nothing requires that a salaried firefighter be paid by THE GOVERNMENT. It's just as easy for a private company to pay the firefighter, and there's no more incentive than with a publicly paid firefighter.

Excuse me? According to you now, a private company does not have a profit motive, which influences the leadership/management of said company - really? You have posted countless times praising the motivating power of exactly that profit motive - now it suddenly does not exist?

Of course a private company has a profit motive, and of course it influences leadership and management of the company. So what? Publicly employed firefighters have a profit motive too, as do their unions. That's rather the problem. If profit motive is the thing that drives arson, then it's irrelevant who pays them and your argument is once again debunked. The profit motive exists in both models, just at a different level. ...

I see one level of profit motive in the firefighters-employed-by-the-government + compensation per fire model: the personal motives of individual firefighters.

I see two or three levels of profit motive in the firefighters-employed-by-private-companies + compensation per fire model: added to 1) the motives of each individual firefighter, 2) the personal motives of shareholders, who therefore require good economic results of the leadership and management. And 3) if persons in the leadership and management happen to be shareholders, too - what then?

Two or three forces pushing in the same direction is more than one. Your view of reality may vary, of course.

Well, like any corporation, the private firefighting contractor has opposing forces that moderate those profit motives. If the company asks for too much money, the contract will be denied and the city will hire a lower-cost competitor. If the contractor gets the contract and fails to adequately fulfill the obligations by cutting costs too much, resulting in inferior equipment, personnel or training, then the city can cancel the contract and the company will be out its investment, and so will the investors.

That's the beauty of the free market and capitalism. For every profit-motive action, there is an equal and opposite consumer reaction, and very quickly the situation reaches economic equilibrium where the consumers (taxpayers) are satisfied with the level and quality of service and the contractor and investors are satisfied with the level of profit.

[Seth]

Is Seeth still trying to claim the abuse in the Church is no more important than that in any other organization? The self-anointed holders of the public morals should be held to a higher standard than that. However, if I cared enough to take him off ignore I would ask him which "other organizations" have an institutional program of silencing complaintants, spiriting the accused out of the area, and threatening the kids with Hell if they spoke up, often with the required assistance of the parents, some of whom went through the same ordeal and STILL put their own kids in harm's way.

Actually, I suspect there's at least as much abuse in non cath clergy and institutions, but the fragmentedness of the other churches makes it look smaller.

The evidence I've seen certainly points in that direction. What's more, it seems to be contemporary abuse, not 40 year old claims.

[Ronja]

For every profit-motive action, there is an equal and opposite consumer reaction, and very quickly the situation reaches economic equilibrium where the consumers (taxpayers) are satisfied with the level and quality of service and the contractor and investors are satisfied with the level of profit.

Except fires typically are fairly rare incidents, so the feedback loop in this case cannot be "very quick", and the result of some profit-motive actions are dead consumers - impossible to replace.

[Seth]

For every profit-motive action, there is an equal and opposite consumer reaction, and very quickly the situation reaches economic equilibrium where the consumers (taxpayers) are satisfied with the level and quality of service and the contractor and investors are satisfied with the level of profit.

Except fires typically are fairly rare incidents, so the feedback loop in this case cannot be "very quick", and the result of some profit-motive actions are dead consumers - impossible to replace.

Well, since, as I have explained, the profit motive exists regardless of whether the company is a public entity or a private one, I expect you would have to provide some evidence that criminal extortion and arson by firefighters is a problem for society. If you want to worry about free market consumer products that kill consumers, you might want to look at lettuce, or perhaps ground beef, or even cantaloupes before you start worrying about firefighters.

Which is not to say that firefighter-caused arson doesn't occur from time to time. The largest (though not the most costly) wildfire in Colorado history, the Hayman burn, was started by Forest Service firefighter Terry Lynn Barton, who claimed she was burning an old love letter in a fire pit in the forest, but who actually wanted to be a "heroine" for finding and putting out a fire during one of the worst fire seasons in Colorado history. Unfortunately, the wind took it away from her, as often happens.

I actually see LESS risk from a private company funded by investors because getting caught engaging in extortion or arson means the entire company will be shut down, and the investors will lose their investment, which gives the company motive to carefully supervise its employees. In the obverse, a government-employee firefighter who starts a fire, even if it is extortionate in nature, may be prosecuted, but the government itself cannot be sued due to sovereign immunity, for the wrongful actions of a public employee (except under very limited circumstances).

[Ronja]

Seth, your belief in the fundamental goodness of private companies and capitalism and the fundamental badness of all government is religious in nature, as you disregard all possible other points of view. IMO, arguing about religious beliefs is a waste of time, so be my guest and have the last word.

[Svartalf]

Greed is good, period, so now will you be paying the quick response premium?

[Seth]

Seth, your belief in the fundamental goodness of private companies and capitalism and the fundamental badness of all government is religious in nature, as you disregard all possible other points of view. IMO, arguing about religious beliefs is a waste of time, so be my guest and have the last word.

I didn't say they were fundamentally good, I said they are no different from anyone else when it comes to motivation for extortion or arson. I also said that the functions of the free market will deal with most of the issues you raise, and that law enforcement and the courts can deal with the rest. The fact that corruption or evil exists in both the corporate world and government is no reason to forego either, it just militates for careful scrutiny and supervision.

And who said anything about religion? Government is a necessary evil, to be carefully kept bound in heavy chains and watched constantly in case it needs to be beaten back into submission to the will of the People. Nothing religious about that, so WTF are you talking about?

[Seth]

Greed is good, period, so now will you be paying the quick response premium?

No, I'll be voting to cancel your contract if you fail to respond with all due speed and diligence as the contract specifies, and we will find another contractor to do the job.