I think for what the Rural Fire Service does they should be paid, what kind of first world country do we live in where we don’t pay all of our emergency services
I think for what the Rural Fire Service does they should be paid, what kind of first world country do we live in where we don’t pay all of our emergency services
The work has real value, no question about that. But there are problems with paying RFS or the like for fighting fires.
You introduce the profit motive into a situation where there is no clear beneficiary to charge. This is a tragedy of the commons situation. It means the only reasonable payer is a government. What government is introducing a large new cost to an already large fiscal budget each year if they don’t have to?
The profit motive can also lead to distortions in the actions of market participants. That may not lead to desirable outcomes for defending, or not defending locations against fires.
For example - By introducing the system of exchange for fire fighting you could actually increase the risk of fires being lit therefore increasing the budgets of certain bad faith actors. An example of manufactured demand.
There are benefits of the current volunteering system. By its nature of being ouside the system of exchange, and being within the system of ‘bequeath in good faith’. For example - This dimishes the demands for service delivery down to match the relatively unpredictable nature of fires.
The issue of interest should actually be, why volunteerism rates are showing a long term downward trend “36.2% in 2010 to 28.8% in 2019” https://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/resources/key-facts/
The system as it is today has benefits that we shouldn’t discount so easily. The problem is the flow of new people into the system is declining when, due to climate change, the rates should probably be increasing.
You could argue that it gives the government an incentive to reduce fire risk through prevention and maybe act on climate change. Perhaps we need a system where they get paid a lucrative amount when they are out fighting fires, risking their lives. I don’t think in the 21st Century we should be exploiting the goodwill of the few for a problem which is very much government driven.
An alternative way to fund them could be in the form of a tax on industries which drive climate change or otherwise increase fire risk.
The incentives are already there, the cost of these services and the clean up already falls largely on the government in all but workers (volunteers) and insurance.
Governments aren’t going to act on climate change if their parliamentarians are voted in on the basis that they don’t care about it as an issue. If they do care about it, they are already taking action, but big boats don’t turn quickly, and Aussie energy usage is a very big boat.
The ‘system’ doesn’t need to change, it needs fixing and support. As I said, if you introduce the system of exchange, ie money, there can be undesirable effects. The idea you present is a great example. “get paid a lucrative amount” is exactly what you don’t want.
Lights and sirens is already enough to attract some people, who often join fire services, to light fires themselves. By the lucrative pay idea, you add an extra incentive for unscrupulous firefighters to go light a fire.
“Exploiting the goodwill of a few”, I think you’d struggle to find many volunteer firies who feel exploited, in the pejorative sense.
A volunteer system arises where there is need in the community for the community. In this situation it is ‘each to the best of their abilities, in the situation they find themselves in’.
An exchange system (money), or hierarchical system (military), can be cumbersome. But a community working together with the right tools and training (our current system), is able to tackle a problem quicker and more effectively, local knowledge is also a big advantage. The community under fire risk has the highest incentive as an entity to protect themselves.
“Very much government driven” I’d argue its wealth driven. The wealthier someone is in a current system the less likely they’ll want change.
“Tax on industries” Labor tried it a decade ago, (after all a tax is simply a cost increase for reason X). It showed signs it was working. Abbott axed it. No ones gone there since. It is still the most cost effective way to tackle climate change.
Sorry for the essay.