NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

writes:

Or you realize than the United States is more than LA, Chicago, and New York.

I realize that there are some places that are really nice in which to live,
and a lot of places that are really miserable in which to live.

I was looking at an airpark in Arizona with a 3 year old, three bedroom
house, private hanger, and access to the runway for $220K outside a
smallish town with a WalMart and all the other normal stuff.

If you want to dedicate your life to flying, it sounds like a good deal.
Which airpark is it? I can think of several in Arizona, particularly around
Phoenix.

Hardly the "edge of Death Valley".

Either you're not talking about southern Arizona, or you've never spent a
summer there.

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

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:29:04 GMT, ktbr wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
pported by my statements.

I believe that _large_, soulless corporations, for which profit is the
_sole_ criterion for decision making, are using their wealth to wrest
power from our government (which was created for and by the _people_,
not corporations), and bend it into benefiting them at the expense of
our nation's people. There are at least two reasons for that
behavior.


And I believe that _large_ soulless governments, for which power and
priveledge is the _sole_ criterion for decision making, are using
their legislative and political muscle to wrest power from individuals
and businesses (which were created for and _by_ the _people_, not
GOVERNMENT), and bend it into benefiting THEM and their re-election
campaigns at the expense of the people that actually work and pay
the bills. There are two reasons for this type of behavior :
Arrogance and greed for ever more Power.

Be that as it may, they don't move to Dubai to escape paying income
taxes they made by profiteering during time of war like Halliburton
apparently has.[1]

The obvious one is greed, but it's not quite that simple.

Politicians are as greedy as they come. I long list of
people found with their hands in cookie jar come to mind...
an obvious and blatant breach of their oaths of office.

At last, something upon which we can agree.


The other reason for basing all corporate decisions on profit, is
competition in the marketplace. If a corporation is able to produce
its product at a reduced cost, it may be able to drive its competitors
out of the marketplace by pricing its products below that of the
competition while continuing to make a profit on them, and ultimately
enjoy the goal of all _large_ corporations: a market monopoly. Then
that corporation is free to charge any price it likes that the public
will bear. If the corporation's method of reducing the cost of
producing its product or service involves exploitation of workers
and/or the environment, all the competing companies in that market
segment will be forced to do the same sort of reprehensible
exploiting, or face bankruptcy due to their becoming uncompetitive.

To you Larry, profit is bad.

What has lead you to that erroneous conclusion?

That is because you are an irrational socialist.

What has lead you to that erroneous conclusion?

On the other hand Government is good and can do no wrong
and is comprised of hard working servants full of honesty and integrity.

.. right.

To attribute such nonsensical views to me reveals one or both of at
least two things:

1. You need some remedial instruction in reading comprehension.

2. Your own self interest subjectively clouds your ability to
reason clearly and objectively.

Lacking any citation of my statements that support your unfounded
allegations above, I must conclude that it is likely that both are
true.


So the much ballyhooed laissez-faire capitalism of the US is
double-edged sward, that is fundamentally flawed.

All socialists feel that way,

Now you're trying to tell me that you know the thoughts of all
socialists. Interesting. To what do you attribute your remarkable
omniscience?

and you Larry, are a socialist, you just won't admit it.

I don't admit it, because it's not true. It is just your subjective
opinion unfounded in fact.

I ADMIT to being a capitialist...
at least I am honest about my passion.

I am also a capitalist. I was a hard working small businessman for
decades, as I suspect you may be. I just have enmity toward _large_
corporations that have no compunction about exploiting the people of
our nation and our government to further their interests. And if you
fail to see it, I'm going to have to question your omniscience. :-)

By its vary nature,
corporate competition fosters ever lower prices, perceived as a
good-thing by the buying public, until it drives its competition out
of the marketplace, and the survivor starts gouging. The other edge
is the implicit mandate to engage in unscrupulous exploitation and
fraud in order to dominate, or indeed survive, in the marketplace.
That needs to change.

It may need to change... but I submit that there is no such mandate
in the Constitution or otherwise for Government to get involved in
these changes. Who in government has the experience and integrity
anyway?

I'm not sure government is capable of effecting such a change. Perhaps
the people alone are capable of making the change as they have
apparently done in the case of environmentally responsible electrical
power generation.

Most are in fact LIFELONG politicians with preciousl little
real business experience. They are also horribly beholden to the
many speacial interest groups that paid big money to get them
elected... you then [sic] they are going to render a fair shack to joe
sixpack???

I'm just trying to envision a solution to the downside of capitalism
of which both the consumers and the businesses seem to be victims.
Call it a creative work in progress. At least I'm thinking outside
the box, and attempting to propose a constructive solution. It's not
easy, but someone has to do it. :-)

In fact, if you had a bit more intellectual honesty
you would agree (and even willingly identify) quite a number of
areas where government intervention has caused inequities, high
prices, shortages, business slowdowns due to ignorant and
worthless legislation.

I am fully able to admit that.

Since they always pander to and show
preference to layers and their lawsuits they make out like
bandits (and they are) while joe six-pack pays the bill.
So much for Government "fairness".

While I agree with much of what you say above, I find it strange that
you should bring those subjects up, as I fail to see how they are
germane to this discussion.

If government is corrupt, it should be changed through electoral
redress.

[snip]
I see ONE method of Government responsibility and accountability:

T E R M L I M I T S


Perhaps that would help. I don't know. But there are surly pros and
cons to the issue of Term Limits.

call me an ideologue, but I still believe in the noble principles upon
which our nation was founded. Hopefully, change from within the
system is still possible.



[1] http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/12/leahy-halliburton/

There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

The cost of the US health system can be blamed on the ABA as much if not
more than the AMA.

They're both in the same racket along with the drug and insurance companies.


I did a google search and here is a good article on how the free
market has been trampled so effectively by the AMA. Its also
interesting to see that even some of the founding fathers of the US
saw this coming:

"One of the signers of our Declaration of Independence was the
physician and psychiatrist Benjamin Rush, MD. He was also involved in
writing our Constitution. He warned, "unless we put medical freedom
into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize
into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one
class of men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of
the Republic should make a special privilege for medical freedom as
well as religious freedom."

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1749

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 05:13:48 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Maxwell writes:

Then someone is buying way too much house!

How much house can you get for $60,000 (1.5 times the average salary in the
U.S.)?

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

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

We are getting pretty far a field here, but I believe it's fair to
say, that Democrats' spending tends to benefit the people, and
Republican spending tends to benefit large corporations.

when using a strange definition of "benefit" for the people.

Please try to communicate in complete sentences if you expect me to
infer your meaning. Thanks.

You are smart enough to know what I meant.

For those that need it spelled out: Larry claims that that it's "fair"
to
say that Democrats' spending tend to benefit the people. That is
only true if you ignore the adverse side-effects of such spending.
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

In the case of "benevolent welfare spending", it lead to massive
pathologies.

Read some of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams works comparing the
pre-welfare state 1950s to the 1970's as regards "African Americans".

Hell, Bill Cosby's recent article (which I assume everyone has seen) tells
us very much.

wrote in message
ups.com...
The cost of the US health system can be blamed on the ABA as much if
not
more than the AMA.

They're both in the same racket along with the drug and insurance
companies.


I did a google search and here is a good article on how the free
market has been trampled so effectively by the AMA. Its also
interesting to see that even some of the founding fathers of the US
saw this coming:

"One of the signers of our Declaration of Independence was the
physician and psychiatrist Benjamin Rush, MD. He was also involved in
writing our Constitution. He warned, "unless we put medical freedom
into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize
into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one
class of men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of
the Republic should make a special privilege for medical freedom as
well as religious freedom."

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1749

IIRC, one of the original amendments considered (11th or 12th ??) would have
forbade lawyers from serving in the legislature.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:28:13 GMT, 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.

Let's see... In 1961 my first home (a little 2 bedroom starter) cost
just under $12,000 and I was making less than $9,000 a year.
In 1966 I built a new home for a bit over $80,000 that was valued
close to $120,000 while I was making a bit over $12,000 a year plus
overtime. I was probably averaging around 50 plus hours a week.
In 1987 I quit work (after 26.1 years) and went back to college full
time.I graduated in 1990 with a bachelors degree. I started working as
a professional in May of 9. My starting wages would have paid for this
place, which would be considered a starter home, in just over a year.
We no longer need a large home



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."

My average work week was over 60 hours and I did not get overtime.
OTOH I was paid well and still had enough time and money to fly about
130 hours a year.




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

Most are very well paid, but you have to be careful as to how they
define "professional". These statistics can be selectively interpreted
The same is true of the housing markets. Just what defines a starter
home? For a while in this area starter homes for professionals were
running well beyond $200,000. Now they are settling for a much more
modest "starter home". Some select areas still push the so called
average AND median way higher than in the rest of the country.
One thing that has changed is inflation. We (as starting
professionals) used to be able to purchase homes that pushed our limit
to pay. Even the limit with two incomes as we knew that within just a
few years our wages would be such that one income would easily make
the payments and in the long run the home would likely be worth more,
usually substantially more than we paid. Now that inflation is low
most professionals (in many areas) can not look at the initial home
purchase in that light.

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

Not the ones I knew.:-))
Long hours were just part of the job and it was both known as a high
pressure work place and a good place to work. That was nothing new 17
years ago.

each week to safeguard their positions.

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?

One guy I've known for years told me he felt better now that I'm not
flying. Of course he also knew I'd never give it up regardless of how
he, or any one else felt. Hopefully in the not too distant future I
can cause him to go back to worrying about my flying. I'd take a
certain sort of perverse pleasure in that.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:32:26 +0200, 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.

40 years ago a "starter home" was a small, quiet two bedroom home. For
the last 20 years a "starter home" was more than what most of us ever
hoped ever achieve 40 yerars ago. 20 years ago young professionals
would move out of their apartment into their first home that ran more
than a quarter million at least in this area. HOwever that home would
be gaining equity due to inflation far faster than they were making
payments. Now starter homes are becoming much more modest around here.

such a person (although the middle class is disappearing).
No it's not.
It's just becoming more isolated from the upper and lower classes.

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.

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.