What can we do about this?
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.)
Seriously I can't see any benefit in this large scale financial engineering
Anyway, https://archive.is/p7B8l
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points
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?
even though nearly every post on this website makes this point, the commenters here really do not like it when you state this explicitly.
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.
Many more capitalists than anti capitalists claimed this in my experience.
You meant true Scotsmen?
And b) about on par with saying "water is evil" because if you drink too much of it you'll die.
For example, you could start with fixing the privileged tax status from carry.
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.
Unfortunately, they overwhelmingly vote for politicians that believe just the opposite 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?
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.
Suburbs of Austin is not what people call rural America
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.
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.
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.
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.
You could say the same for the heavily gerrymandered house districts.
An ally in Forsyth county or Mississippi doesn’t help.
It’s a mistake, in my opinion, just as it’s a mistake to ignore that non-swing states can and have flipped unexpectedly.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I was a hobbyist assembly language programmer for six year prior to going to college and did some BASIC.
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.
And I assume you are okay with what YC does?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
If someone is having a heart attack are they going to refuse to go to hospital that is backed by the federal government?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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”.
Guess how many fundraisers I heard about when I lived in Johns Creek GA - with a median income of $150K?
When we have state and federal government. Would you be okay with a volunteer police force?
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.
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?
No, they purchase their equipment funded by taxes.
The very article said that even the software needs to be rewritten for new federal standards. Should that be free?
How much money do you think it would take to fund the shortfall for every rural fire department?
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.
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)
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.
[1]: https://www.firerescue1.com/fdny/should-nyc-split-ems-from-f...
Too poor
But they are more concerned with fighting “wokism” and “socialism”
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
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?
I doubt they do... they all have jobs and lives otherwise, they can simply not do the thing.
Rural areas don't have the population, revenue, and incident frequency to justify full-time services.
what I don't get is the government collectively would save money just making it themselves.
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."
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.
gregsadetsky•16h ago