> Sensing an opportunity, a private equity group called American Industrial Partners (AIP) began to roll up the industry.
As usual, things are the way they are because of unchecked capitalism and private equity being allowed to do whatever they hell they want.
> As usual, things are the way they are because of unregulated capitalism and private equity being allowed to do whatever they hell they want.
This is exactly what happened - and why. Capitalism is a healthy system where it is a healthy system. Beyond that, capitalism is either: Beneficial thru flexible, effective governance. Or not beneficial. That's every possibility.
Exploitive manipulation of the firetruck market lies outside of the healthy-by-default area of capitalism.
I guess that’s socialism though, so not gonna happen.
> As usual, things are the way they are because of unchecked capitalism and private equity being allowed to do whatever they hell they want.
This is basically the Abbott baby formula shortage but for this other critical product. Instead of having a large market with more competition the US has its own special sausage.
Comparable vehicles cost ~500k Euro (~600k USD) in Germany for instance. Update regulations to allow imported vehicles, get popcorn, and laugh as they wail and cry foul play.
And immediately get 100% tarrifs :)
The consolidation of suppliers for all of this is also a contributor to cost and delivery time. That problem is endemic throughout Western economies.
> Fast forward 60 years, and those businesses were contending with aging founders, depleted municipal budgets, and declining fire-truck orders. Sensing an opportunity, a private equity group called American Industrial Partners (AIP) began to roll up the industry.... the REV Group, now one of the three leading manufacturers of fire trucks in the U.S. REV captures about a third of the country’s $3B in annual fire truck sales ...
This is all demand-side inflation: For any number of better and worse reasons (mostly worse), as building codes have gotten stricter and fires have become rarer, municipal spending on fire departments has exploded. Well-funded fire departments buy more expensive trucks than they probably need, just like well-funded police departments buy military-class SWAT equipment they probably don’t need.
Do you have evidence for your claim about well funded fire departments splurging on unneeded equipment? Police departments buy military surplus through federal programs that specifically encourage it [1]. It has nothing to do with how well funded they are, which is why you see that equipment show up even in smaller and poorer areas that don't have particularly well-funded police or the need for a Bradley fighting vehicle.
[1] https://www.marketplace.org/story/2020/06/12/police-departme...
Point is, what's to stop that from happening? In that business or any other, it's bad for many, good for a very few.
In one side-effect, the wait time for a new truck has reached up to 4 years. And the contracts are being written so that the cost can go up during that wait.
which a typical private equity company with a near monopoly on supply would naturally pass on the customer via reduced pricing?
That seems at odds with how such things often go.
Despite always having top performance, never received a “merit” based raise.
The only “raise” I ever got was to change jobs.
The average new car today costs about $48,000 [1]. The average new car in 2010 was about $24,000 [2]
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/08/a-new-car-costs-nearly-50000...
[2] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-744-september-10-2...
> botched COVID response
I didn't, I compared average home price then vs now.
I don't necessarily agree that the price of houses shouldn't be in inflation, but it is there by proxy and the calculations do make some sense:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-the-consumer-pri...
So it is the cost of shelter rather than the prices of houses that determine inflation.
The layman definition of inflation is "everything got more expensive". The academic definition seems to be "things got more expensive, but only if there isn't a shortage of that thing or too much demand(?)".
I think the layman definition is more logical, because shortages and demand are solvable if there's enough monetary inventive, which is ultimately accounted for in, you guessed it, the final price.
Businesses will try and trick people into thinking $250 is an acceptable price to charge to visit a swimming pool. They'll do the same shit with firetrucks if nobody is paying attention.
Excellent article, and great to see someone pointing this out. Prices will climb out of control if people are suckers and believe the lie of "you get what you pay for." It's more like businesses will keep ratcheting up prices indefinitely as long as there are suckers around who are easily parted with their money.
Extended rant... my ex once wanted to pay $500 for a f*cking vacuum cleaner. People are stupid. Had we listened to Henry Ford they'd still be making some version of the Model T and you could buy a new car for $6,008.85 (inflation adjusted price of a Model T).
Who wouldn’t? Aren’t people usually proud of minimizing their work to pay ratio, whether it’s earning more and more to sit at a desk and browse HN or selling a firetruck for a new high price.
But when it is government bureaucrats spending public money procuring multi million dollar equipment, the problem is more likely to be government corruption or at best incompetence.
I came to this realization when learning about someone driving a car into a building to do damage and thinking "wow, that's an expensive round", then looking it up and realizing, it's not actually that expensive compared to how much military projectiles really do cost.
I've found it somewhat interesting that we'll be shocked at a fire truck, which gets a life time of 15-25 years and works in the service exclusively of saving lives, costs around $2 million, but not be shocked that we effectively use something as expensive as a fire truck as a single round in a gigantic gun.
Not to say that fire trucks don't potentially cost too much, nor that military weapons aren't worth it. More that I don't think most people are really aware of the obscene costs of military conflicts.
And the USA will never lose that status as long as it keeps importing things from so many other countries. Oops!
Your numbers are a mess and jump wildly between scales.
I'm not defending spending the $$ on bombing brown people, but it's hard to overstate how divorced spending is from outcomes in US healthcare. It's as bad or worse than colleges.
The American health industry is optimized to profit rent-seekers, and so it is very inefficient in terms of patient outcomes.
If that's in contradiction to us buying more healthcare, then we must admit that some of that healthcare isn't productive, it's rent seeking. IMO, this is what I actually see in the US, so it all adds up.
As an example, rich people getting lots of testing done increases spending, but it's driven by their wealth as much as it is by doctors enthusiastic to increase revenues. And if they are healthy, it isn't going to provide them much value.
Couple this with the attempts to centrally plan capacity and you get a cost spiral.
In a sanely administered system, you wouldn’t send every five year old that ran into some furniture to get a CAT scan. You’d just accept the infinitesimal risk of some hidden injury that couldn’t be caught with physical contact examination but could be caught with a CAT scan.
In another example, my wife’s grandmother had a stroke at 87. They medevacced her out of her house in rural Oregon to Portland. Then the doctors wanted to do a bunch of expensive procedures until she passed away a few days later. She was a lovely lady, but no European country would’ve greenlit these procedures on an 87 year old woman who had a quarter of her long missing due to lung cancer in her 60s.
The more you drill down into health indicators to distinguish the effect of medical care from other factors, the less it seems like US outcomes are worse. US overall indicators, like life expectancy, are worse. But those factor in many things that have nothing to do with the health system, such as homicide, car accidents, demographic, obesity, etc.
For example, Americans eat a truly disgusting amount of food compared to europeans. I’m a relatively low resource consumption asian, and even I was always hungry when we visited Paris because the portion sizes were so small.
Because it has the X-ray equipment, they have make a return on investment on it, and that's why they end up doing useless tests. Those are even harmful by the way, as X-rays are ionizing reaction, and useless CT scans are actually responsible for a non-negligible fraction of cancer in the US.
The reason why european countries don't run more CT scans isn't that they lack equipment, it's because the risk/benefit isn't good for cases like your son.
> In another example, my wife’s grandmother had a stroke at 87. They medevacced her out of her house in rural Oregon to Portland. Then the doctors wanted to do a bunch of expensive procedures until she passed away a few days later. She was a lovely lady, but no European country would’ve greenlit these procedures on an 87 year old woman who had a quarter of her long missing due to lung cancer in her 60s.
This is wrong. If we're sharing anecdotes let me tell you about my 97yo grand dad who's been admitted thrice in ER this year in France, and received what would have amounted to almost $100k of medical bills in the US. (He's OK now, but at this age you never fully recover to your previous state, so every trip to the hospital is a step down).
> The more you drill down into health indicators to distinguish the effect of medical care from other factors, the less it seems like US outcomes are worse. US overall indicators, like life expectancy, are worse. But those factor in many things that have nothing to do with the health system, such as homicide, car accidents, demographic, obesity, etc.
This is true, it explains a good fraction of the life expectancy difference, but it's irrelevant to the fact that the US pays twice are much for similar healthcare.
But because the risk/benefit isn’t as good, they don’t have as much of this expensive equipment. The U.S. has about 40 MRI machines per million people, versus 10 for Canada or Denmark or 20 for Spain.
Also, your numbers are cherry-picked: Japan has more MRI machines per capita for instance, and Germany or even Greece aren't far behind the US.
We’re talking the overuse of diagnostic testing using expensive equipment in the U.S. My anecdote happened to involve a CT scan, but the data I had seen on it focused on MRIs: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart/per-capita-u-s-thr...
I used Canada as a data point because it’s common to compare the U.S.’s healthcare system to Canada, because the countries are otherwise pretty similar. Japan and Greece have very different populations.
2025 and some people still think the US invades other countries to give them "freedom".
European countries pay far less and have as good or better overall outcomes.
uses multiple swords. basically just a long tube with blades on it, designed to kill through direct kinetic force.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
The US doesn't deny local citizens healthcare so that some people far away can be blown up. If anything, it limits its ability to blow people up far away with all the extra money it is spending locally to prevent people from getting healthcare.
But the US has lots of money, so it still finds quite a bit for blowing people up far away.
“ Each Javelin round costs $80,000, and the idea that it's fired by a guy who doesn't make that in a year at a guy who doesn't make that in a lifetime is somehow so outrageous it almost makes the war seem winnable.”
“The Houthis […] say they are targeting Israel-based ships or vessels headed to Israel. They are attacking ships as they cross the strait of Bab el-Mandeb, connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. The Red Sea hostilities are part of a pattern of Middle East attacks from Iranian-backed groups against the U.S. and Israel in response to the Israel-Hamas war.”
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4382064-houthis-force-car...
Would those costs still be obscene if you were in a conflict where you’d want to use a significant number of them? Right now they’re expensive because they’re essentially just sitting around.
Why do you think that’s the reason for these high prices rather than, say, lack of competition?
If the U.S. still had it's own (gov't-owned, gov't-operated) production facilities - as, historically, every A List nation has had - to provide honest competition? Hell, no.
History: The not-even-yet-the-U.S.A. set up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory in 1777, to manufacture military ammumition. And the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Yard in 1799.
The small-arms ammo was just their MVP for 1777. By the late 1950's, the government was building stuff like this in it's own (gov't-owned, gov't-operated) shipyard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Navy_Yard
I'm thinking that a Tomahawk has rather fewer parts, from fewer subcontractors, than a >60,000-ton aircraft carrier. And doesn't take multiple years of continuous work to build, either.
Axiom: While, in the past, gov't organizations were quite capable of performing the largest, most complex, and most critical technological tasks that society faced, things are somehow Different Now - and only non-gov't organizations (very preferably for-profit corporations) are now capable of such things.
But what is actually Different Now is this: Our ruling classes de facto decided to reduce the gov't's core competency in a part of national security - because outsourcing those capabilities to for-profit org's was far more lucrative for them, and the nation seemed secure enough that they didn't much care about the downsides.
Humans are very responsive to their social environments, and its structure and unwritten rules. Setting the "Non-corporate" bit on the org that a human works for does not magically reduce what they are capable of. Linus Torvalds actually is the creator and BDFL of Linux. Even though he is an individual human - not a corporation, nor a secret front for one. The mathematicians who completed the classification of finite simple groups ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_finite_simpl... ) over decades and centuries completed that massive task while generally working individually or in small groups, for wide array of colleges and universities.
In other terms, Protoss-type technology works well when you have a large advantage and need to deal a decisive blow; an example would be B-2s bombing the Iran nuclear facilities. But when you're in a protracted conflict against a capable adversary, Zerg-type technology, cheap, flimsy, and truly massively produced, seems to be indispensable.
Ukraine plans to buy 4.5 drones in 2025. They’re definitely going with volume over software features. Further they’re allowing frontline drone regiments to earn “points” based on kills and using the points to buy their own drones instead of allocating them top down. The regiments appear to be favouring the cheap drones over expensive ones like the Helsing HF-1.
What’s interesting is that European governments are probably going to end up buying tens of thousands of the expensive drones because the laundry list of features, rather than investing in true mass production like the Ukrainians have. Going the Protoss way, rather than Zerg.
Is that 0.5 drone for spare parts?
The war in 2022 was primarily an artillery war. Drones were in use, but the dominance you describe came later.
1. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/304947...
When it comes to government work, the biggest cost savings always come from questioning the necessity of requirements.
People point the fingers at defence contractors, but their net margins are typically only around 10%.
Isn't military spending and the corruption of the government military industrial complex one of the oldest gripes in the American public forum? People sure are outraged about it, or were[1] -- has that become passe now?
[1] "The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement." -- Eisenhower 1953
There was no real standing Army until WW2 since it's against the Constitution. That's why the Marines (part of the Navy) were all over the place supporting US business interests, but not draining the public purse too heavily (look up Smedly Butler for a good read)
This isn’t true. Firstly it isn’t against the Constitution to maintain a standing Army. What the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 is “The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...”
The people drafting the Constitution knew that a standing army could be abused by a tyrant, but having served in the Continental Army also knew how vital a standing Army was to maintain peace. That’s why they designed it so Congress controls the purse strings and authorises military spending only for 2 years at a time. The executive may give the orders, but there’s a time limit on the Army he can give orders to.
And the second part - the US has had a standing Army since 1796. You remember Robert E Lee resigning from the Army to join the Confederacy? If there was no standing Army, what did he resign from?
But even leaving aside these two historical facts, think about it logically. Throughout history military advantage has always been with the better trained, more experienced troops. Even if you rely on conscripts in a war, they need to be trained and led by professionals. Saying a standing army shouldn’t exist is like firing all your firefighters and saying you’ll start hiring when someone reports a fire.
1. You can only use one missile to hit a target. In pre-gps era we would would dozens or hundreds of rounds to ensure one of them destroys the target.
2. You can fire from a safe distance. Using artillery or dropping bombs from an airplane involves physically getting closer to the target. This introduces much more complexity that adds to the overall cost.
3. There is significantly less collateral damage when using a single missile for a target compared to bombing the general direction of the target.
4. We take significantly less risk of casualties when using these missiles.
The comparison is not between "do it without smart bombs and drones" vs "do it with smart bombs and drones" and the former costing more.
The comparison is between "if we didn't have the smart bombs and drones, we wouldn't have done anything because whatever it was wouldn't have been worth the cost in money and American lives" versus "we spent a million dollars blowing up some stuff because we could do it on the cheap and with no risk."
On a broader scale the US's involvemnt in the foreign affairs of other nations skyrocketed when we went from having volunteer armed forces to a "professional" armed forces. Ike predicted as much in his rant about the military-industrial complex.
https://reibert.info/lots/kometa.1605164
https://reibert.info/lots/kometa.1605128
https://www.olx.ua/d/uk/obyavlenie/kometa-8-kometa-m-gps-IDY...
https://www.olx.ua/d/uk/obyavlenie/kometa-5-kometa-m-gps-IDY...
This is why they famously flew them over Iran when they bombed Iran in '91. The software wasn't yet good enough to be sufficiently assured there wouldn't be some error/drift over the fairly featureless desert resulting in some small fraction of the missiles getting confused and landing in the middle of nowhere Saudi Arabia or something.
Edit: Now I see my mistake, lol
The only place in the entire world where fire trucks cost that much is North America, and it’s not because there’s anything inherently special about trucks made there.
The companies that make the parts for those missiles (not just the mega corp whose badge is on it) are likely only in business because they make the parts for it, and employ 20-200 people with decent pay and full benefits in Corn County, Midwest to do it.
On the surface it looks like enormous waste, it still might be, but understand that the defense budget is primarily a jobs program and basically only thing propping up Americans manufacturing.
This is why it never gets cut, but anyone red or blue. It employs way to many people and in way to many places without much good work. Republicans especially hate welfare, but if you can get people to show up and turn screws, they'll happily "waste" money on them.
But yes, that's a big source of the expense. Even on the IT side of things, the government (especially the military) pays sometimes up to 50% more for FedRAMP versions of SaaS products that have their servers based in the US and which are only administered by US citizens.
Not that I want to see anybody build bombs
Not just a jobs program, but it is strategically important to national security to retain the ability to manufacture military hardware (or at least along with allies)
It’s unfortunate that means to maximize taxpayer value we have to actually use or sell all those weapons, potentially by initiating or participating in conflicts we otherwise might not have.
It isn't solely a "welfare for hicks" program like HN likes to portray though I'm sure the dollars go farther in other states.
but only if it's for their doners or major corporate constituents. they're not proposing WPA public works or getting the average man out working on solar panels
Length of time from the end of WWII (ending with two ideological opponents, victors who saw the fruits of victory, a ramped up industrial base focused on armaments and a devastated landscape of Europe and Asia to fight on) to WWIII is 79 years, 10 months and counting. No one reading this site has experienced a World War (and if you did, I’d like to shake your hand). Whatever keeps that counter ticking over have been, and are, dollars well-spent.
A bit like keeping your hand raised to keep elephants away from your US house (well, it’s worked so far). But the alternative is just…unacceptable.
What is happening now in the Ukraine is a result of a gross miscalculation without any grounding in reality (no, NATO was not going to attack Russia). The war in the Ukraine is not a leftover from WW2.
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918,
And they've hardly bothered us since then."
If you strip away all the moralism and suffering, the conflicts (plural) in the middle east and increasingly Ukraine are all about keeping the defense industry and the economy going. Same with Ukraine. Same with just about any other conflict where countries like the US supply the weapons.
Edit: they are helping to kill the children, they are not doing it themselves
Conflating Ukraine with Gaza is genocide-denial gaslighting.
Minting dollars is a form of taxation (albeit one partially paid by foreign entities that hold dollars)
Do you think the labor and resources that went into creating that materiel would vanish if it wasn't created? Like a missile is magic and conjures engineers and metal into existence just to fulfil its creation?
Oh and in fact leaves a little left over, the "profit", because thankyou for giving it some schools to obliterate?
What would we do if we weren't blowing people to bits huh, building theme parks or something instead - oh the waste! Think of the ~slaughter~... ahem, I mean the "economy"!
what happens after it's made is a function of utility. lotta waste, but if a 2 million missile can trash 4 million in buildings, cars, and humans, then it is still a win, even if there is no profit.
Ps: Ukrainian army has better use for ammo than Israel. Should have sent there
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
-- notorious antifa leftist Dwight D Eisenhower
-- Smedley Butler, a United States Marine Corps Major General and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.
The only thing the missile has to do is be cheaper than the bomber it’ll destroy. To be cheaper than the infrastructure that can’t be bombed into dust because the bomber was destroyed by the missile. Taken in that light they suddenly seem pretty cheap.
Now, imagine that money going to American infrastructure and health.
Ruzzians launched 10000+ missiles. Some estimate they are spending roughly $900m per day on the war. 1250+ days. Can only imagine how they could enhance their old underdeveloped infrastructure with all that money. But instead they are terrorizing their neighbors.
Pure evil country.
You can get Siennas for $1-2k under MSRP. Shop around.
There is Toyota Siena, Honda Odyssey, Kia Carnival, and Chrysler Pacifica, and I think that is it.
Among those, the people wanting to buy a Toyota are maybe considering a Honda, but otherwise they are only going to buy a Toyota, and they will pay a premium for Toyota.
Chrysler and Kia are downmarket and not a consideration.
And minivans are not a huge market, so Toyota probably does not allocate too many resources to making more Siennas since they do not expect to sell many more at their desired price.
Another good point called out in the article are the floating costs. The manufactures do in fact increase the costs after the fact so not only do you need to order a truck years ahead of time with a budget you don’t have (borrow money) but then you have to cough up an indeterminate amount of money years later. A real sad time for first responders.
In my Australian State, South Australia, this a huge contrast with police who buy new from the manufacturer, get a three or maybe five year service contract from the manufacturer and then sell them when the warranty expires and they've done around 100,000 km (60,000 miles). So no servicing worries and they get some tax benefits so it works for them.
Ambulances have less mileage and my guess is retire after 10 years. Ambulances are very standardised so can swap metro and country vehicles to get value from the asset. There was a "twin life" ambulance (http://www.old-ambulance.com/Twin-Life.htm) that had a long life rear bit on a light truck chassis so swap out the motor bit two or three times every 200,000kms, but these days vans are used. There was much sadness in the ambulance fleet buying community when Ford discontinued the F150 type chassis in Australia.
But your average (fire/rescue) appliance in the city or country has low mileage. In the city plenty of use but never have to drive far. In the country not much use but do drive further but end up the same a very old vehicle without much mileage on the clock. Trailers can be even older 50 or 60 years before retirement. Another issue with a fire appliance is they carry water which is heavy, three tonnes is a pretty common load. And have other readers have mentioned a monopoly on manufacture wouldn't help.
Another problem I have heard of is that while the actual mileage may be low, the miles that are driven tend to be much "harder", in the sense that an emergency services vehicle may be accelerating and stopping rapidly, and generally being thrashed without regard for the vehicle, leading to increased wear on the engine and transmission.
It reminds me of the saying attributed to Jeremy Clarkson, about the fastest car in the world being a rental.
Somebody will go buy a standard commercial truck with a flat bed and put a pump and hose on the back of it.
>“If you’re hanging out the window on the fifth floor, we can’t get you on a ground ladder,” he says. “You’re jumping.”
This is literally every single fire truck in Germany. Designing trucks is hard.
The cost quickly adds up once you start adding features, and they have a lot to choose from.
https://www.rosenbauer.com/en/au/rosenbauer-world/vehicles/m...
My department is very well funded compared to the rest of our county. Compared to cities, it is laughably underfunded. We are 90 percent volunteer. We have zero paramedics, only EMTs (about 4).
An Engine not only has to run but has to pump. An engine may drive 3 miles but then run for 20 hours without moving but pumping water the entire time (using the transmission to do so). If the pump is not up to standards, FFs do not enter a building. No water, no entry. If the pump isn't compliant then it is not longer an "engine". Mileage is irrelevant. A low mileage engine (10k) might have a million other problems after 100k hours. Who fixes that in a volunteer department?
Ambulances are the same. The drive may be short but the engine never stops idling or charging the equipment on board. In the city the answer is always transport. If you have 1 ambulance and 6 hours round trip, you may stay on scene for a while to avoid a transport (assuming you don't risk the patient's life).
Most volunteer departments have 1-2 engines, and those are aging. If an engine goes out of service without a replacement, we stop responding.
This is not a city/rural problem. If you have ever taken a road trip, gone camping, visited relatives in "the country", then then you are relying on, and praying they have the equipment and staff to respond. Go outside the city for a rafting trip- swiftwater, rope rescue, EMS, traffic... all in the hands of volunteers with no resources.
Back to the article- we have one engine out of service. We can't buy 20x our tax revenue. Yes, everything has gone up in price. When EMS and Fire becomes unpurchaseable, there are (dire) consequences.
Another way to think about it: Are other highly developed nations seeing the same "crisis(es)" that you mention? (Think G-7 and close friends.) Hint: They do not.
* Seattle cops blatantly defraud us and one gets 1 week unpaid vacation: https://publicola.com/2024/11/07/officer-suspended-for-exces...
* Those same cops retire at 55 years old with retirement packages worth over $4M (boosted fraudulently as above).
* Similarly, Seattle fire calls have a lot of people and a lot of them getting overtime https://publicola.com/2025/01/24/nearly-200-firefighters-mad...
All this means we get taxed a lot more for ever fewer workers.
And this only scratches the surface. NFPA demanding all breakers be arc fault (add $1k+ to every home build), Seattle permitting being years backlog, governments don't have workers which know how things should be built so our construction costs are 10x other developed countries. We're living off legacy and have an ever-dropping standard of living.
the "developed world" has a lot of problems with high costs (Baumol effect, extremely high standards, etc) and also the problem of low scale. China was able to roll out thousands of miles of high-speed rail at a very low relative cost, because of scale, a bit lower quality and lower standards (human rights, eminent domain, worker safety)
for example when it comes to policing the US pays comparatively less (given the rate of crime it has) even though it pays more than many other OECD countries
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-sp... (see the police per 100K metric, for example France has 422 whereas the US has 242)
Also something most folks don't know: about 70% of the firefighters in the US are volunteers. If you're in a big city you'll have 4 paid folks on an engine (maybe 3 and 1 intern) but as soon as you venture out of the city you'll see more engines 100% staffed by volunteers. And if you don't know the difference that's a good thing!
Fire departments run on budgets that would also shock you (how low they are).
It's too bad the only possible way to pump water is with a $2M specialty truck. Let's just raise taxes.
Yeah, the minimum cost isn't $2M, but it's probably pretty close to $400k a truck. Then you add on urban rescue equipment if you're not in a rural area and things start to get very expensive.
Put a pump on a trailer. The problem with this country is we're not allowed to have "decent"; we are only allowed to buy the "best" and so we just hobble along with old shit while everything's breaking down and we're paying too much for the things we do buy.
The problem you're always going to run into is that your truck needs to haul around 10 tonnes of water and protect its crew. You can stick a pump on the back of a hardened ute, but then you need to leave and find water 20x more frequently plus your pump is a dinky little water pistol, or you can drive a commercial water tanker into a bushfire, but then your driver needs to be unusually brave and no longer have much to live for.
I accept that firefighters are getting ripped off, but it feels like maybe 5% to 20% of the cost could be reduced, and then you're still dealing with unaffordable equipment.
Not sure where specifically they sourced it, one of the military surplus auction houses like:
https://www.australianfrontlinemachinery.com.au/vehicles/uni...
Does the job and scrambles well.
But you can do everything those do with an E-series cutaway ($200k fully outfitted?) and a pump pulled on a trailer. For a whole lot less than $2M.
https://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/e-series-cutaway/2025...
How much power are we talking about? 10-20 years ago, sure, using the engine and alternator for power made sense. Nowadays a hybrid has a several-kWh battery and plenty of power, along with an engine and generator optimized for much better charging performance. A PHEV is even better.
I wonder why there don’t seem to be PHEV van platforms. If someone made something like a Transit or Sprinter with a 50-100 kWh battery, an engine, and an option for a serious 120/240V system so that monstrous 12V wiring could be avoided, it seems that much nicer, more efficient and longer lasting ambulances could be built, not to mention camper vans and such.
The idea that everything is so complex that only a small number of suppliers are capable of building any machine is preposterous.
I bet you with a budget of $50 million, I could design and build a Firetruck from scratch as well as the entire production line and I could produce each subsequent truck for $200k max, made in America. I could probably have the whole thing almost fully automated with robots in 5 years with a bit of additional funding.
And I know nothing about mechanical or electrical engineering. I just know I could do it. I would find the right people. There doesn't need to be that many components to bloat up the cost/complexity to $2 million, that's ridiculous. I'm no Elon Musk. I just think many people with a little bit of brain could do it if given the opportunity.
The problem is lack of opportunity. I will not be given this opportunity because it works against established financial interests. The economy is a zero-sum game, that's a fact. Everybody knows this because nobody would even give me the opportunity to prove it even though $50 million would be chump change for big finance.
Why would anyone fund a venture which involves work and risk, when they can already extract the same nominal profits without any additional risk or work? Nobody is thinking about 'real value'; everyone is chasing nominal gains in a race to the bottom; whipping up the entire economy into a giant souffle full of air.
Caring about nominal gains is like caring only about volume and ignoring the weight... If the economy was a cooking competition, everyone would end up baking souffle, chocolate mousse and meringue. Nobody would be baking pound cake.
Did you read the article? It even says that the market is full of smaller companies. Around 50% are at <10% market share.
>It's clearly not competitive.
It clearly is competitive though. Else you would have one or two large players and nothing else.
It needs a paramedic because fire fighters often need paramedics.
So if the small vehicle has a paramedic, you still need one for the big truck.
And if you have another vehicle, you need a bigger apparatus bay at the station and more beds and more staff times three shifts.
Finally, when the 911 call comes in there is not time to triage. The system is optimized for response time because people might die.
Otherwise if they're in a car, they'd have to drive back through traffic to the station, move their gear to the new vehicle, and drive back to the scene. It can cost valuable time. Fire engines carry a surprisingly large amount of tools and equipment for a variety of purposes.
That being said, many larger departments are trying out "cars" (usually an SUV) with two people and a med bag to go to medical calls. While the engine/truck and crew stay at the station. This is fairly expensive with the new vehicle, equipment and extra staffing. However it is being done now with success in urban areas.
Person on scene?
Time to hospital for patient?
Time to arrival of a fully equipped ambulance to deal with emergencies?
Risk and time from dealing with a complex handover of the patient from fire truck crew care to ambulance care?
For me it seems like in the vast majority of cases optimizing for getting a fire truck on scene fast is the wrong solution. Waiting a few extra minutes for the ambulance would improve outcomes.
And it is of course possible to differentiate on calls.
A life or death situation like a cardiac arrest or someone bleeding out would select from all available units. Including the fire department, ambulances and police. But those are a tiny sliver of 911 calls.
But also, I don't understand why first responder ambulances don't co-locate with the fire stations (in places where there are more of the latter). If there's an emergency that is not a fire, the ambulance goes.
Fire engines in Europe are as well equipped as the American/Canadian ones while not depending on these massive and expensive bespoke rigs.
I've also seen more ambulances that are based on a transit/mini bus platform for call outs that aren't major, think old person falling over. They save the big boxy ones for more serious issues.
Also, going back to get the tools or change the vehicle is incredibly stupid because: 1) crews already know what they're going to be dealing with before they leave, 2) just suppose they forgot to pack the tools - we have mobile phones, you know...
They have precognition and can see into the future and know that a house fire is going to start while they're out at a non-fire call in your country? That's amazing! And by "amazing" I mean "bullshit". Now it's perfectly possible in your specific region of your specific country that they have sufficient resources, or face a some what different problem space given local details like types of construction etc, which lets them allocate things differently. But you shouldn't be so quick to lob around accusations of "stupid" at proven emergency response forged through hard lessons and ruthless practical local realities from your limited perspective and thinking.
>2) just suppose they forgot to pack the tools - we have mobile phones, you know...
Did you really just suggest that an extra 20-45min wait is no problem in a life/safety critical situation, or that there will necessarily be someone who can go bring it from a volunteer fire department? Or do think that there is nowhere further then a few minutes from a fire dept? Either way you are in a serious, serious bubble.
Do heart attacks and car accidents usually include fires in your country? I could only find statistics for Finland [1]. It seems that fires are so rare they're put in the "rescue and other authorities" category which has a total of 5% of calls requiring intervention.
In my country I know of only 2 or 3 cases of cars that caught fire in an accident in the last 10 years and they all caught fire immediately, not after ambulance arrived. They're so rare, it's a major news story every time. And I know of no heart attacks that were followed by a fire. /s
Let's assume that somehow a fire starts after the initial crew gets there. I'm sure everyone is trained to: 1) call for the fire truck (that's separate crew, nobody has to go back and fetch it), 2) use the fire extinguisher from the van and 3) as most emergencies are in cities, use the building's fire hoses and extinguishers until 1) arrives.
> extra 20-45min wait is no problem in a life/safety critical situation
That's not what the statistics show. [2]
> Either way you are in a serious, serious bubble.
No, I don't belive I'm in a bubble. I still belive it's a very very big waste of money and resources to call a fire truck if there's no fire.
[1] https://112.fi/en/-/statistics-on-the-emergency-number-112 [2] https://wifitalents.com/emergency-response-time-statistics/
Fire/emergency stations are placed so they can get quickly anywhere in their assigned area. If they're at another call when a real fire starts, it's not statiscally probable to be closer than if they were at the base station. They could be delayed even more by the traffic jam caused by the car accident they're responding to.
So better send one of the vans to heart attacks and car accidents and keep the fire truck at the base stations for fires only.
That's not a goal.
To me they seems to have tuned their rigs to what they need most In rural area prone to forest fire, they have big all terrain trucks with water tank (useless in cities)
Staffing.
Almost every call requires more than two people and ambulances are typically only staffed with two people.
If there is a second call (fire, rescue, or anything that requires the larger apparatus) while the fire engine is out assisting the EMS crew and the crew has taken a smaller vehicle, they have to drive back to the station, get on the engine, and then respond to the second call. This is not uncommon-- for my department I'd say it's routine.
In smaller volunteer departments like mine, there aren't enough people to go around.
In larger paid career departments, the cost of the extra personnel needed to staff smaller vehicles very quickly exceeds the cost of the wear and tear on the larger apparatus. You have to account for more than just their salaries, but also insurance, training costs, any equipment issued, and retirement contributions.
There's also the matter of equipment. Larger apparatus carry tools and equipment that smaller vehicles can't or don't.
Many jurisdictions do have a mix of resources where EMS crews can get the additional resources they need on a call without an engine or truck responding, and it does work for the most part. Most jurisdictions can't afford that.
It seems common in Europe to not send fire apparatus, but I'm willing to bet they deal with many fewer bariatric patients so most calls don't need six guys.
In Europe, you’ll see small, peaceful neighborhoods where people naturally drive slower on narrower roads. More greenspace. Less asphalt. They have small fire trucks that can navigate those streets just fine.
There’s really no reason they need to be so massive. It's a choice.
(Or that America needs a one size fits all approach to fire trucks - things that work well in cities may not work well in rural areas)
A 2024 combine [1] is listed for $790k. And a fire truck in Sweden was priced about $700k in 2023 [2].
[1] https://vanwall.com/shop/agriculture/harvesting/combines/202...
[2] https://www.mitti.se/nyheter/satsningen-pa-civilforsvaret-tv... (Swedish)
So three companies control around 62% of the market.
That doesn't seem like too much consolidation to me. If anything, it might be too little consolidation to hit the sweet spot where the gains from economies of scale outweigh the risks of monopoly effects.
For comparison, staying in transportation, in the US 3 companies have 45% of the market share for cars [0]. 3 airlines have 62% [1]. And there are a lot more flights or cars sold than fire trucks: maybe a better comparison is passenger airplanes where three companies worldwide have 99.6% [2].
Private equity may be greedy, and would charge monopoly prices if it could, but there's nothing in the article to suggest that fire truck manufacturers have that kind of pricing power.
[0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-automakers-by-u-s-ma...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/250577/domestic-market-s...
[2] https://simpleflying.com/how-airbus-boeing-production-change...
Fire trucks are up 860% since 1973, as measured by one Illinois municipality. But everything else is up 620% [0], so that explains 3/4 of the price rise. Nobody thinks manufacturing in the US has got cheaper in real terms over the last fifty years.
[0] https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1973?amount=1
Also fire truck repair is much more amenable to competition (the article points out how fragmented and competitive the market for the trucks themselves already is), this is just truck maintenance there are small to large shops for this around the entire US. Especially since the trucks themselves likely are generic and not fire specific.
This is entirely on the city, blaming some other boogeyman for this is absurd. Sure, you hate private equity, but they aren't some menacing ghost causing everything bad in the world.
It also tries to connect private equity to what is, very clearly a failure in maintenance, which is nonsensical.
I don't know about the US, but in Germany all fire trucks are based on generic truck models, so many spare parts are available outside the niche industry of fire vehicles. The blame clearly lies with the underfunding of fire departments, who can not afford proper maintenance.
On the other hand JFC Chicago, get your shit together. Even if you're dealing in un-obtainable old garbage it's not hard nor does it require OEM support to keep brakes working and suspension components remaining located under the vehicle. 30yr is a perfectly normal age for vehicles of this size and specialization in every industry that isn't fueled by a firehose of taxpayer monopoly bucks. You pass 30yo semi trucks every day on the highway. When it comes to dump trucks and other vocational trucks that are home every night they're frequently even older.
I get that to Karen who doesn't know any better that's "just what happens" to old vehicles and would reinforce the point that they're old but to anyone with the slightest shred of domain knowledge it speaks volumes about the fleet maintenance situation at Chicago fire.
(Before anyone says it: no, all these dumb capex things probably don't add up to that much relative to the total budget. But it would be easy to show I'm wrong, since all this data is public.)
In the UK they are ~$500k https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-19629694
lukebechtel•6mo ago