Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dgreen

As Fires Decrease, Firefighters Increase

Recommended Posts

My BIL is a firefighter in Ann Arbor, he averages about 2 fires a year. They have 5 fire stations, fully staffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather too many than too little.

And they do more than just put out fires. What about accident reports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And those numbers don't even account for volunteer firefighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather too many than too little.And they do more than just put out fires. What about accident reports?

:goodposting: And medical calls as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather too many than too little.And they do more than just put out fires. What about accident reports?

:goodposting: And medical calls as well.
Downed trees in urban areas too. And help with flood conditions. Pretty much any problem for which a swift government response is warranted.Basically this is a complaint about a name. Maybe we can call them "public emergency response units" so the author of the article will feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says in there that the average call costs 3500 bucks. How do they figure? Do the fire fighters get paid more when they are out on a call vs. staying in the firehouse? I doubt they do. The only variable costs for a firefighter call would be wear and tear on equipment, gas/diesel, water, etc. Those are not 3500 bucks. It is similar to when a coast guard boat has to go rescue some kayakers and we hear how that cost 4200 dollars. I always think to myself how do they figure that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather too many than too little.And they do more than just put out fires. What about accident reports?

:goodposting: And medical calls as well.
Downed trees in urban areas too. And help with flood conditions. Pretty much any problem for which a swift government response is warranted.Basically this is a complaint about a name. Maybe we can call them "public emergency response units" so the author of the article will feel better.
Yeah. For instance we have a lot of flash flooding around here. The Fire Dept is the one who comes and rescues people with Swift Water teams. Also I would like to see how much is saved in property taxes and fire insurance premiums by having these depts. Those things are influenced by number of fire fighters, number and location of fire houses. My guess is there is some offset there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says in there that the average call costs 3500 bucks. How do they figure? Do the fire fighters get paid more when they are out on a call vs. staying in the firehouse? I doubt they do. The only variable costs for a firefighter call would be wear and tear on equipment, gas/diesel, water, etc. Those are not 3500 bucks. It is similar to when a coast guard boat has to go rescue some kayakers and we hear how that cost 4200 dollars. I always think to myself how do they figure that?

Take the cost of a dept. Divide that cost by the total number of fires...or number of calls if u prefer. And voila!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says in there that the average call costs 3500 bucks. How do they figure? Do the fire fighters get paid more when they are out on a call vs. staying in the firehouse? I doubt they do. The only variable costs for a firefighter call would be wear and tear on equipment, gas/diesel, water, etc. Those are not 3500 bucks. It is similar to when a coast guard boat has to go rescue some kayakers and we hear how that cost 4200 dollars. I always think to myself how do they figure that?

Take the cost of a dept. Divide that cost by the total number of fires...or number of calls if u prefer. And voila!
We need more fires to keep those costs down!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather too many than too little.And they do more than just put out fires. What about accident reports?

:goodposting: And medical calls as well.
:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So am I the only one who thought the point of the article was to shift the focus to medical services instead of firefighting? (i.e., less firefighters, more paramedics, less engines, more ambulances)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's important is that these people have government jobs. We need more of them, not less. If we could only have all graduates move into "public service", as President Obama wants, then unemployment would be solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a strong public union here in Milwaukee. My buddy took a 10 day vacation a while back without actually using any vacation time, just rearranged his schedule a bit. Tweak an ankle or bump your shoulder on a run? Take a few months at home please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says in there that the average call costs 3500 bucks. How do they figure? Do the fire fighters get paid more when they are out on a call vs. staying in the firehouse? I doubt they do. The only variable costs for a firefighter call would be wear and tear on equipment, gas/diesel, water, etc. Those are not 3500 bucks. It is similar to when a coast guard boat has to go rescue some kayakers and we hear how that cost 4200 dollars. I always think to myself how do they figure that?

Take the cost of a dept. Divide that cost by the total number of fires...or number of calls if u prefer. And voila!
We need more fires to keep those costs down!
Someone call the Trashcan Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downed trees in urban areas too. And help with flood conditions. Pretty much any problem for which a swift government response is warranted.

If the graph included things like downed trees and floods, what would you expect those lines to look like?

Basically this is a complaint about a name. Maybe we can call them "public emergency response units" so the author of the article will feel better.

Maybe. But, the decrease in fires is a decrease in public emergencies. So unless there are other things that would cause large increases in public emergencies (like downed trees and flooding), we may still be left with many more people than are needed.I think there's pretty good evidence than an increase in police presence can cause lower crimes. But, I don't think an increase in "public emergency response units" would decrease public emergencies.ETA: This really comes down to what people think is the proper role of a firefighter. I don't have a strong opinion about any specific tasks, but I'd say I'm against expanding their role just to keep them employed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather too many than too little.And they do more than just put out fires. What about accident reports?

:goodposting: And medical calls as well.
Downed trees in urban areas too. And help with flood conditions. Pretty much any problem for which a swift government response is warranted.Basically this is a complaint about a name. Maybe we can call them "public emergency response units" so the author of the article will feel better.
plus posing for hunk calanders with their shirts off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lazy firefighters.

This kind of story always strikes me as part of laying the groundwork for some ill-conceived money grab. Once they can gin up some public sentiment against this normally unassailable group—firefighters—we'll be seeing chin-stroking think pieces from the American Enterprise Institute calling for privatization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downed trees in urban areas too. And help with flood conditions. Pretty much any problem for which a swift government response is warranted.

If the graph included things like downed trees and floods, what would you expect those lines to look like?

Basically this is a complaint about a name. Maybe we can call them "public emergency response units" so the author of the article will feel better.

Maybe. But, the decrease in fires is a decrease in public emergencies. So unless there are other things that would cause large increases in public emergencies (like downed trees and flooding), we may still be left with many more people than are needed.I think there's pretty good evidence than an increase in police presence can cause lower crimes. But, I don't think an increase in "public emergency response units" would decrease public emergencies.
Not sure what your point is really. As has been stated already, I'd rather have them down the road doing nothing than have them out fighting a ton of fires or worse yet not have them at all.An increase in "public emergency response units" wouldn't decrease public emergencies but it would reduce response times and in turn prevent minor emergencies from becoming much larger emergencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the way the weather has been acting, I think it might be a good idea to have a few extra firefighters on hand. Ya know, just in case. Its like insurance, but insurance that can actually save the life of someone you care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been stated already, I'd rather have them down the road doing nothing than have them out fighting a ton of fires or worse yet not have them at all.An increase in "public emergency response units" wouldn't decrease public emergencies but it would reduce response times and in turn prevent minor emergencies from becoming much larger emergencies.

So you'd be ok with 50% of every community being a firefighter? Of course you wouldn't. You'd recognize that as being overkill. We all realize that at some point there can be too many of X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the way the weather has been acting, I think it might be a good idea to have a few extra firefighters on hand. Ya know, just in case. Its like insurance, but insurance that can actually save the life of someone you care about.

Yeah, but do you really want firefighters making good wages and retiring comfortably? It just seems so 1950s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been stated already, I'd rather have them down the road doing nothing than have them out fighting a ton of fires or worse yet not have them at all.An increase in "public emergency response units" wouldn't decrease public emergencies but it would reduce response times and in turn prevent minor emergencies from becoming much larger emergencies.

So you'd be ok with 50% of every community being a firefighter? Of course you wouldn't. You'd recognize that as being overkill. We all realize that at some point there can be too many of X.
Sure, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather too many than too little.And they do more than just put out fires. What about accident reports?

:goodposting: And medical calls as well.
My best friend is a firefighter. The elderly emergency calls are horrible. He's 24 on 48 off , well paid but you couldn't pay me enough to deal with the sorrow he sees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been stated already, I'd rather have them down the road doing nothing than have them out fighting a ton of fires or worse yet not have them at all.An increase in "public emergency response units" wouldn't decrease public emergencies but it would reduce response times and in turn prevent minor emergencies from becoming much larger emergencies.

So you'd be ok with 50% of every community being a firefighter? Of course you wouldn't. You'd recognize that as being overkill. We all realize that at some point there can be too many of X.
id rather have that than us spending more on military than the next 20 nations combines.i love how right wingers clamor for reduction in spending but ignores the largest welfare spending...defense contractors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i found out our firefighters are called to every outdoor homicide in the city so they can spray the blood away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i found out our firefighters are called to every outdoor homicide in the city so they can spray the blood away.

thats great. who wants to walk through dried blood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been stated already, I'd rather have them down the road doing nothing than have them out fighting a ton of fires or worse yet not have them at all.An increase in "public emergency response units" wouldn't decrease public emergencies but it would reduce response times and in turn prevent minor emergencies from becoming much larger emergencies.

So you'd be ok with 50% of every community being a firefighter? Of course you wouldn't. You'd recognize that as being overkill. We all realize that at some point there can be too many of X.
Sure, why not?
Why not? Same reason you don't want 50% of your roster being QBs (or RBs, or LBs, or any other single position).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been stated already, I'd rather have them down the road doing nothing than have them out fighting a ton of fires or worse yet not have them at all.An increase in "public emergency response units" wouldn't decrease public emergencies but it would reduce response times and in turn prevent minor emergencies from becoming much larger emergencies.

So you'd be ok with 50% of every community being a firefighter? Of course you wouldn't. You'd recognize that as being overkill. We all realize that at some point there can be too many of X.
Sure, why not?
Why not? Same reason you don't want 50% of your roster being QBs (or RBs, or LBs, or any other single position).
i have found that making public policy decisions by making analogies to fantasy football lineups has never steered me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there more firefighters in existing departments or are there more paid fire departments? I would guess that there has been a substantial number of suburban communities that have grown to the point they need a professional department in that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there more firefighters in existing departments or are there more paid fire departments? I would guess that there has been a substantial number of suburban communities that have grown to the point they need a professional department in that time.

Why dig into the numbers to find complicated answers when you can look at the numbers on the surface and gin up some outrage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there more firefighters in existing departments or are there more paid fire departments? I would guess that there has been a substantial number of suburban communities that have grown to the point they need a professional department in that time.

Population has increased by about 30% in time frame covered in that graph, so I'm sure that's part of the increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there more firefighters in existing departments or are there more paid fire departments? I would guess that there has been a substantial number of suburban communities that have grown to the point they need a professional department in that time.

this is correct. i have financed numerous home builder developments and a new fire station etc is required due to existing fire departments being too far to service these new communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there more firefighters in existing departments or are there more paid fire departments? I would guess that there has been a substantial number of suburban communities that have grown to the point they need a professional department in that time.

Why dig into the numbers to find complicated answers when you can look at the numbers on the surface and gin up some outrage?
It depends on whether it helps or hurts your position, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been stated already, I'd rather have them down the road doing nothing than have them out fighting a ton of fires or worse yet not have them at all.An increase in "public emergency response units" wouldn't decrease public emergencies but it would reduce response times and in turn prevent minor emergencies from becoming much larger emergencies.

So you'd be ok with 50% of every community being a firefighter? Of course you wouldn't. You'd recognize that as being overkill. We all realize that at some point there can be too many of X.
Sure, why not?
Why not? Same reason you don't want 50% of your roster being QBs (or RBs, or LBs, or any other single position).
Depends on league setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who was a firefighter for 3 years. He says he was paid to basically play video games and watch tv. Just sayin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who was a firefighter for 3 years. He says he was paid to basically play video games and watch tv. Just sayin.

this is why we should be so thankful for 9/11.got those lazy firemen off their asses and got them to stop free loading.:thumbup;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And those numbers don't even account for volunteer firefighters.

The way they word it -- a 40% increase in "career firefighters" -- leads me to wonder if the number of volunteers has increased or decreased in that time frame. If we've seen a massive reduction in the number of "volunteers" who might not be counted as a "career" firefighter, then the overall number might be very different from a 40% increase. Maybe the total has actually decreased. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bagger killing it in here.

Welcome back Sandbagger. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who was a firefighter for 3 years. He says he was paid to basically play video games and watch tv. Just sayin.

this is why we should be so thankful for 9/11.got those lazy firemen off their asses and got them to stop free loading.:thumbup;
On the other hand, it's kind of annoying how every firefighter now seems to use 9/11 to justify whatever it is you want. "How dare you do that after we risked our lives on 9/11" Dude, you a thousand miles away. You had nothing to do with 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who was a firefighter for 3 years. He says he was paid to basically play video games and watch tv. Just sayin.

Why did he quit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bagger killing it in here.

Welcome back Sandbagger. :thumbup:

:wave:

hi gb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And those numbers don't even account for volunteer firefighters.

The way they word it -- a 40% increase in "career firefighters" -- leads me to wonder if the number of volunteers has increased or decreased in that time frame. If we've seen a massive reduction in the number of "volunteers" who might not be counted as a "career" firefighter, then the overall number might be very different from a 40% increase. Maybe the total has actually decreased. :shrug:
They say in the article the volunteer numbers are basically unchanged:

The number of volunteers has been roughly constant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And those numbers don't even account for volunteer firefighters.

The way they word it -- a 40% increase in "career firefighters" -- leads me to wonder if the number of volunteers has increased or decreased in that time frame. If we've seen a massive reduction in the number of "volunteers" who might not be counted as a "career" firefighter, then the overall number might be very different from a 40% increase. Maybe the total has actually decreased. :shrug:
They say in the article the volunteer numbers are basically unchanged:

The number of volunteers has been roughly constant

Guess I should have actually read the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a strong public union here in Milwaukee. My buddy took a 10 day vacation a while back without actually using any vacation time, just rearranged his schedule a bit. Tweak an ankle or bump your shoulder on a run? Take a few months at home please.

Yea - I got a friend who has been out getting skin grafts and treatment for burns over his arm after bumping into an explosion in a burning house - he's been out of work for over 6 months - friggen union scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.