We have laws that make new construction very fire safe.
The majority of fire fighter responses are no longer fire related.
They can easily be replaced by EMS.
This is the big Union lie about fire fighters.
Fire Fighters are paid for a hazardous job which no longer has meaning. Pay them for what they do not what they say they might do.
>> Pay them for what they do not what they say they might do.
You mean that if a crew of firefighters prevents a $200,000 structure from being destroyed, they get 10% of the value, or if they prevent your heart attack from killing you while you go to the hospital, they get 10% of your life insurance and 10% of all your future earnings? They could be like privateers. Arrr!
When I worked in process controls on power plants, I prevented several unit trips would have cost the company over a million dollars each. The second time I prevented a trip, I had paid my salary for my entire career (if I had stayed in that job for a lifetime). Paying employees for what they do and not what they can do is cost-effective for low-skilled employees, but when you get to the critical and/or high-skilled employees, it could really cost you a lot.
Odds are robots and other technology will eventually do a lot of the grunt firefighting work.
I like that idea. Have a base salary they get paid for routine work based on the area. If most calls are minor traffic accidents, burnt food, false alarms, etc. pay then for that. If they respond to major accidents that require the Jaws of Life, large house or commercial fires, etc they they get paid more for those calls only. Paying for them to do all those things on every call when most are minor injures or burnt toast makes no sense.