NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

On Apr 26, 6:32 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Marco Leon writes:
Yes, and yes. While I don't think that the reasons you mentioned are the
primary reasons, I do think they play a part. Salaries are indeed higher but
so are the housing prices. A "starter" house in Long Island, NY for example
is around $450K. Paying for that mortgage while bringing up a family leaves
little room to blow $7K on a year's worth of flight training.

Forty years ago, a "starter" house might cost 1.5 times the annual salary of a
person in the middle class. Now it may cost ten times the annual salary of
such a person (although the middle class is disappearing).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

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.

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.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

wrote:

On Apr 26, 6:32 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

It is funny how close to the description of my house this is; built in
1940, less than 1000 sf including the one car garage/laundry room (by
one car garage it means that it fits one subcompact with just enough room
to get out of the car providing no storing of any junk in the garage);
the only thing that was not there when the house was built is a DSL
connection... The nice thing is that it has a very decent sized back yard.
Which is exactly what I was looking for, except that it is difficult
to find, everything on the market (either to buy or rent) strives to
be exactly the opposite: tiny/no backyard, as many built square feet as
possible (you know, for the 'formal dining room', the
'imposing hallway', the 'vaulted ceiling', the 'three cars garage' which
can fit three massive SUVs with room to spare, and all that crap museum
space that nobody really use except to impress each others -- or to
store vast amount of junk); I mean is it really what people want or
what they think they want because of massive advertising/tv brain washing?
or am I a dying breed?

--Sylvain

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 26, 6:32 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

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),

Really?


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

Larry Dighera wrote:


Could it be that Americans are working longer hours?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/.../30/ilo.study/
CNN) -- You're not imagining it. The United Nations' International
Labor Organization (ILO) has the proof: "Workers in the United
States are putting in more hours than anyone else in the
industrialized world."


Larry for once I agree with you. I had to write check to Uncle Sam
this year that really hurt. (apparently buying votes is getting
more expensive). I have a full time job and two part time jobs...
apparent;y being a productive American is a costly endeavor.



And is it possible that the increase in hours worked don't equate to
more disposable income?

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/workhours.html
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, though the average
work week has increased by just over an hour and a half a week,
the proportion of people who work much longer weeks (48 hours and
more) has risen greatly. The occupations which saw the greatest
increase in the percentage of workers averaging 48 hours per week
or more were professionals and managers (who are most often not
paid overtime though they are among the highest-paid workers) and
sales and transportation workers (who are among the lowest-paid
workers and earn more as they log more hours). The Bureau of Labor
Statistics also notes that high unemployment numbers also
stimulate salaried workers who are employed to put in more hours
each week to safeguard their positions.


As I stated Larry, Uncle Sam seems to be spending like a drunken sailor.
I've discovered that the harder you work the more he's got his hand
in my pants taking more of my hard earned efforts to come up with a
few extra bucks for flying. 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.

I've discovered that the harder you work the more he's got his hand
in my pants taking more of my hard earned efforts to come up with a
few extra bucks for flying.

Amen, brother. Until we, as a people, come to grips with this
completely out of control, tax-consuming, inefficient monster of a
government bureacracy that we've created, we will find our freedoms
and our income ever more diminished.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican thing -- this is a We the People
thing -- and we've GOT to do something about it, soon.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 26 Apr 2007 18:57:24 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote
in .com:

Until we, as a people, come to grips with this
completely out of control, tax-consuming, inefficient monster of a
government bureacracy that we've created, we will find our freedoms
and our income ever more diminished.

Consider $3-billion a week in Iraq for five years, or much longer
depending..., and the money-sink of a blundering Department of
Homeland Security. It is those useless expenditures that are
consuming the wealth of our nation.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican thing --

If you fail to see the GOP's madness, you are blind.

Larry Dighera writes:

If you fail to see the GOP's madness, you are blind.

If you can't get past partisan politics to see the individuals who cause the
problem, you're part of the problem yourself.

The tendency for people to polarize into club mentality of partisan politics,
as opposed to considering each candidate or elected official as an individual
and each issue as independent of party lines, is a serious problem that tends
to afflict all democracies eventually, and it is part of what leads to their
demise.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Consider $3-billion a week in Iraq for five years, or much longer
depending..., and the money-sink of a blundering Department of
Homeland Security. It is those useless expenditures that are
consuming the wealth of our nation.


Larry please... please research and discover that the US spends
THREE times as much on entitlements (welfare and other handouts)
as it does the military.

On Apr 26, 11:17 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 18:57:24 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote
in .com:

Until we, as a people, come to grips with this
completely out of control, tax-consuming, inefficient monster of a
government bureacracy that we've created, we will find our freedoms
and our income ever more diminished.

Consider $3-billion a week in Iraq for five years, or much longer
depending..., and the money-sink of a blundering Department of
Homeland Security. It is those useless expenditures that are
consuming the wealth of our nation.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican thing --

If you fail to see the GOP's madness, you are blind.

The Republicans have been particularly egregious in their borrow and
spend approach, but history shows that the Democrats aren't much
better.

The stereotype of Democrats is that when they control the purse
strings they tend to increase spending. The stereotype of Republicans
is that they tend to hold spending down. The truth is that in years
when one party controls both the Congress and the White House,
spending tends to go up. That is true for Democrats, but it is just
as true for Republicans. The best way to get spending to decrease (or
at least not increase as much) is to have one party control Congress
and the other party control the White House.