NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

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

This is true, sort of. In any case, those who would make that decision
(rather than fall into it) are savvy enough to figure it out. Most
people are not, and owning their own home is the most security they will
get.

Owning also gives one a stake in the neighborhood that renting does not,
and this is (seen as) a societal good which should be encouraged (to the
extent that any should). So I'm not opposed to tax incentives to
encourage home ownership here. However, I am aware of (though have not
analysed) the other (governmental) things which work against it.

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

Very true Jose. I was simply evaluating the social engineering
that _I_ feel is societally regressive

.... and others may disagree on which ones are regressive and which ones
are not. So, I'm in favor of the light touch, but I'm not necessarily
in favor of no touch.

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

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:11:26 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote in
:

[Detailed financial and hours-worked historical analysis refuting the
notion of the more recent increase in working hours and lower salaries
as a possible cause of the decline in aviation entrants snipped]

I think the most important item is missing from this analysis. The
article also noted that the current generation appears to have an
aversion to risk and the general population views general aviation
right in there with Bungee jumping or jumping the Grand Canyon with a
motorcycle. IOW the conclusion which he stated in the article was we
may be, in general, raising a generation of cowards who want to be
protected and shy away from pursuits associated with risk.

Just stop and think of how many people you know have made remarks
about either how risky flying is, or how they worry about you flying.
How many have had to give up flying due to girlfriend, wife, or
family?

There is no question that fear plays a role in flying whether it's
airline or personal, with the latter provoking a response several
orders of magnitude greater than the latter. However, I doubt that
there are studies that show an _increase_ in cowardice in GenX. I
sure hope it's not true. Did you find any supporting information for
that notion that you can cite?

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:28:56 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Anyone that can escape from income taxes should get a medal.

You feel that way despite the fact that Halliburton earned their
income from the US government?

In your ideal world, how would the US government be funded?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

There are very livable homes in every state for $60k,,,,, but you said 10
time retard,,,, can't you follow your own posts???

Yes. Ten times the average salary is $400,000, and it's very easy to find
communities in which this is the starting price for admission. If it's
worth
living there at all, the price skyrockets.

Besides, you are either to ignorant or to impatient to accept the fact,
that
in every state - you can buy a $60k home, live in it for 10 years, and
usually trade up with your equity, and have a $100k to $120k home for the
same monthly payment.

That's exactly the sort of practice that has made home ownership
inaccessible
for so many people today. It's all a matter of greed.


Yeah, your greed. You want to sit on your butt and make no contribution, and
expect a $400k home to be given to you.

Poor baby, I should have known you couldn't follow the thread.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:33:50 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:



Sounds like one term should be the limit.



I like it. Anyways.. if term limits won't work
I'm open to other suggestions... HEY! How about
lets just do AWAY with them (all the lawyers while
we are at it).


If you're going to dismantle Congress, you'd have to do the same with
the Judicial and Executive branches. Are you advocating the complete
removal of federal government in the US?

On Apr 26, 2:28 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:53:18 -0400, "Marco Leon"
wrote in :

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/fa...=1&oref=slogin

The number of student pilots is down by about a third since 1990,
from 129,000 to 88,000. The number of private pilots is down from
299,000 to 236,000, according to statistics kept by the Federal
Aviation Administration. And they are aging.

Some longtime private pilots fear that an industry is withering,
and a bit of Americana is slipping away, along with a bit of
freedom and joy. And it is happening in part because of lack of
interest; Walter Mitty doesn't want to fly anymore.


Maybe one reason there are fewer pilots now is that the pilots who
learned to fly in World War II have been leaving us in the last 17
years. The war exposed a lot of men (and some women) to flying, and
many of them continued to fly after the war. In 1990 many of those
pilots would have been in their 60s.

What we need is a way to expose people to flying like the war did.
Hopefully the Young Eagles program will help with that.

"Ross" wrote in message
...


I like to watch these "Flip this House". I would call them entry level
homes (1100 sq ft) and they can go for $400,000 in LA, SFO area. I am not
sure saleries are up there for the young starting out. My kids bought 40+
year old homes in the Fayetteville, AR area and I was amazed how much they
had to spend - getting close to $100K and these were in the 1300 sq ft
range. They are not lawyers or engineers.


Obviously you can spend as much as you like, and with homes that usually
means location. But if someone really wants a $60 started, they can find
something livable in most any town with a few exceptions. Problem is, most
are wanting a lot more than they are willing to pay for.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Roger (K8RI) writes:

No it's not.
It's just becoming more isolated from the upper and lower classes.

It's actually disappearing, not just becoming isolated. The distribution
of
wealth is moving back to the way it was in the nineteenth century, with a
very
small minority of very wealthy people and a very vast underclass that just
manages to squeak by--and almost no real middle class at all.


That's because more and more young poeple are much like yourself. The find
it much easier to sit around and complain about what they don't have, than
working to secure their wants and needs in the future.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
writes:

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.


Just can't follow a thread can you. You are clearly the type of crum that
wants everything handed to him. Just keep making your "self defeating"
excuses. Just be ready to settle for the results someday when you realize
you have "excused" your life away.