Not really. Most firefighters in the US are volunteer, so not enough pride to pay people to do it.
In big cities, it's more of an internal camaraderie thing. They live together, cook together, shop together, etc. A lot prefer being at the station with their 'brothers' to being at home.
Most firefighters in the US are volunteer, so not enough pride to pay people to do it.
Having a volunteer fire department does not mean there isn't pride.
In fact, it can be argued the opposite -- Volunteer departments mean the citizens take enough pride in their brigade that they get directly involved in it, rather than farming it out as a civil service.
I think there is a big difference between the pride of individual being a firefighter (many people feel this and are willing to take the job with no pay or benefits even though firefighters are at risk for a whole range of occupational induced diseases) and the pride a community feels for an organization and their willingness to support them.
The tax base just isn't there sometimes. I've seen community budgets where everyone is hanging on by a thread. Not quite as bad as Native American reservations, but up there.
There are plenty of communities in America that have professional fire departments. Particularly cities where there is actually a tax base to support it. You'll find volunteer fire departments in pretty much any working class town where the manpower is capable and willing but the money is lacking.
Absolutely. Look at Long Island, NY. There are a number of communities with the wealth to transition to professional fire brigades, but the property taxes are already high and the political leanings run conservative.
For most small towns I think its more the fact that a fire is a pretty rare occurrence (a couple call outs a year with a major fire every few years) so its more of a cost/benefit decision - they're willing to add ~5 min to the response time for a rare event in order to deploy $1m+/year to other higher priority areas
In the UK the majority of firefighters are on retainers, and will spend a few hours a week training, but otherwise just rely on pagers. They're paid a few thousand per year plus hourly and callout rates.
Volunteer firemen in the US certainly do get paid, or at least reimbursed. They're not working for free. And places with volunteer fire departments aren't volunteer because there's no pride, they're volunteer because there aren't enough fires to warrant paying people full-time to sit around doing nothing. They're on-call, and they get paid to respond to fires. In the meantime, they go to their normal job that also pays them money.
I think you are overgeneralizing. In the two places I'm familiar with, rural North Carolina and rural Wisconsin, "volunteer firemen" are truly unpaid volunteers. You are right that others are paid for their time, but it's not universal. Here's a Straight Dope thread that talks about the different approaches in some different places: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=658416
Around here, the state government subsidizes volunteer companies for equipment and facilities, and the fire district can bond with public votes that attract fewer voters than school board elections. My dad lives in a town with 250 annual callouts, a $10M firehouse and two $300k fire engines.
In the city that I live in a few miles away with a paid department, the firehouse next door does like 6,000 calls a year with a 2005 truck with 200k miles on it.
In big cities, it's more of an internal camaraderie thing. They live together, cook together, shop together, etc. A lot prefer being at the station with their 'brothers' to being at home.