NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

My gawd, what are you saying? Rewarding some
behavior encourages more of it?

I've heard it happens.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

You are using the fallacy of "all things being equal".
I am? I fail to infer your meaning as it relates to this discussion.

I explained that subsequently, he

The doling out of money =causes= people to
reach their hands out -

to which you reply:

If true, that is an inescapable side effect. It's a spurious argument
tantamount to refusing to take a life saving medication that may cause
nausea.

No, it's not spurious. It's tantamount to not taking a nausia
medication because it might be addictive.

Are you arguing that people shouldn't retire after thirty or
forth years of toil?

No. I'm arguing that they shouldn't retire on my dime. If they failed
to accumulate =their= dimes, they have no right coming to me.

Are you saying, that those retired workers who have
paid into SSI should not receive a SSI check commensurate with the
amount they contributed during the time they worked and paid into SSI?

No. I'm saying that those people who are getting SSI should not be
getting it from my dime. Or, in other words, I should not be required
to pay into SSI to begin with (and if I end up impoverished because I
failed to provide for my own retirement, say, by living too large while
I was working, then I am not entitled to =your= dime either.)

Or are you saying, that we, as a country, are not big enough to show
compassion toward those who were created with less than optimal
mentality and manual skill, even when it is in our collective best
interest?

Compassion comes from individuals, not from laws. And I do not agree
that it is in our collective best interests. I don't necessarily
disagree either; there are many facets to this that are being
oversimplified here.

Guess what that encourages.
What what encourages?

Doling out money based on the recipient having made poor choices (not
saving for retirement, for example).

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I thought the uS always used median and let the people confuse it
with average. Have they changed?

While such confusion may be to the benefit of some, median is probably a
better measure of what people are trying to measure using it. An
average is easily skewed by a small number of instances of extremely
high values, whereas the median isn't. Put another way, if the top 1%
triples their income while everyone else stays the same, the average
income rises, but the median income stays the same. The "real" income
for most people actually goes down, because wealth is relative (via prices).

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 06:06:37 GMT, Jose
wrote:

I thought the uS always used median and let the people confuse it
with average. Have they changed?

While such confusion may be to the benefit of some, median is probably a
better measure of what people are trying to measure using it. An
average is easily skewed by a small number of instances of extremely
high values, whereas the median isn't. Put another way, if the top 1%
triples their income while everyone else stays the same, the average
income rises, but the median income stays the same. The "real" income
for most people actually goes down, because wealth is relative (via prices).

I always looked at it the other way around.
Median is the middle number in the set, so whether you have on person
making a million a year or a thousand it counts the same in which case
the average is skewed and the median isn't. OTOH The number of
discrete values in the set can easily skew the median. So I guess it
depends on how the median is determined in this particular case.

Jose

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:50:22 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

writes:

There is also a huge change in the definition of "starter". Once upon
a time, it was under 1,000 sf, had electricity and gas, a washer in
the laundry, one bathroom, and perhaps an attached carport. Now it's
wired like a computer business, has AC (but is not any better
insulated than in 1950), a small gourmet kitchen, complete laundry in
the air conditioned space, probably two enclosed garages, a fireplace
even if you live in the desert, and most likely you are forced to pay
homage to an HOA. After that, you MUST have HDTV, DVD, Satellite TV,
cable, digital phones, internet capability hooked up, automatic garage
door openers, security system, automatic porch and garage lights, the
fridge has two doors with auto ice and water, the kitchen has a
garbage disposal, dishwasher, perhaps a wine cooler. You now have a
"master suite" with its own separate bathroom, a whirlpool tub and
separate shower, and two sinks.
In short, the starter house, or any other house, has a lot more stuff
than it did in 1950, and it all costs money.

Actually, what you describe was a starter home in the 1970s (except for the
whirlpool tub), and it still cost only about 1.5 times a person's annual
salary.

As I remember it that era was the start of the big expensive starter
homes.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:49:16 -0400, Jose
wrote:

I'm more than a little uneasy with the government rewarding "good" behavior, as the definition of "good" changes from administration to administration, but the mechanism for rewards remains in place.
Jose
Its called social engineering and it breeds corruption and the
affording of 'special favors" to certain groups and favored
businesses by various politicians.

True. But just to play the other side for a moment, this same social
engineering (through tax incentives) has made it easier for Americans to
own their own homes. Or so I'm told. Actually, in the Dominican
Republic, where we sponsor several impoverished children, even the very
poor own their own homes. Outright. Granted, they are not the same
quality of home as we have here, but they are owned, where here in the
US, the less well off rent.

Renting isn't necessarily confined to low or even middle class/income
families here. A great many upper middle class rent as well.

OTOH I'd much rather rent a good quality home or apartment than own
lesser quality. Owning a home is not necessarily every ones goal.
Here a good percentage own to build wealth through equity usually
gained through an increase in value. Also, it's typically cheaper in
the long run to own a modest home rather than rent.

Now it depends on your location. In many areas you can make more
money by investing it rather than paying off a home. If I pay 5%
interest, and my home gains 3% per year I'm far better off letting
that money work at 12 to 14% return, or more


Maybe government zoning and construction laws have something to do with it.

And public libraries are nothing more than a communist or socialist
wealth redistribution mechanism too, but I wouldn't be without them.

The issue is not as simple as either side paints it.

Jose

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:46:44 GMT, Jose
wrote:

I see ONE method of Government responsibility and accountability:
T E R M L I M I T S

Not a solution. Play the part of a term-limited politician. How would
you remain powerful? It's not so hard.

Here in MIchigan we have had term limits for some time. They are not
working out nearly as well as had been hoped, so we are looking at
lengthening them by at least one if not two more terms.

First term they ar ejust leaaarning the ropes. By the end of the
second term they are just becoming efficient and able to accomplish
something and they are out.


Jose

On 27 Apr 2007 20:28:24 -0700, wrote:

On Apr 26, 1:37 pm, kontiki wrote:

. On top of that, the BIGGEST benefactor
odf rising gas prices IS government. Federal and state governments
make more off a gallon gass through taxes than the oil companies do.

Huh? I see tax stickers on a per gallon basis. This is not affected
by the price itself.

Unless of course the price gets high and the use of gas therefore
drops, in which case the tax collected also decreases.
IIRC, this was actually the case during the '73 gas crunch.

The taxes are likely higher than the profit. The oil companies don't
have to pay for the roads.

Gas taxes are probably 5 or 6 times the profit per gallon made by the
oil companies.

So far the US has never seen high gas prices compared to the prices
most of the world has been paying for years.

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...

Here in MIchigan we have had term limits for some time. They are not
working out nearly as well as had been hoped, so we are looking at
lengthening them by at least one if not two more terms.

First term they ar ejust leaaarning the ropes. By the end of the
second term they are just becoming efficient and able to accomplish
something and they are out.


Sounds like one term should be the limit.

Jose wrote:


The issue is not as simple as either side paints it.

Jose

Very true Jose. I was simply evaluating the social engineering
that _I_ feel is societally regressive (i.e like income taxes
and other government programs). I think some tax credits _are_
a good idea because they encourage people or businesses to
produce things (generally).

But to your point, If I were a strict Constitutionalist (which
I am not really) I would oppose all of that stuff. Some positive
social engineering can be good but too much of it (which is
really where we are no I believe) is a very bad thing.