Where is everyone?

"Mxsmanic" wrote

There are other considerations, though. People from the mid 60s to around
the
beginning of the 1970s had more disposable income than they do today.
Prices
have increased but wages have not kept pace, and since the 1970s the
situation
has been gradually getting worse.

In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell phones
(one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio, "starter"
homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand new
cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
"necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable income.

BDS

BDS writes:

In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell phones
(one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio, "starter"
homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand new
cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
"necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable income.

The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
diminished for the dwindling middle class.

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

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

In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell
phones
(one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio,
"starter"
homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand
new
cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
"necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable
income.

The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
diminished for the dwindling middle class.


You wish. We all make choices, yours is to whine.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

BDS writes:

In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell
phones (one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite
radio, "starter" homes the size of small castles, home entertainment
centers, or 2 brand new cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today
these are all looked at as "necessities", and they consume what would
otherwise be disposable income.

The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
diminished for the dwindling middle class.

IOW you haven't got enough to buy twinkies and coke


bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

BDS writes:

In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell
phones (one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite
radio, "starter" homes the size of small castles, home entertainment
centers, or 2 brand new cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today
these are all looked at as "necessities", and they consume what would
otherwise be disposable income.

The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
diminished for the dwindling middle class.


You're an idiot.


Bertie

The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
diminished for the dwindling middle class.

That's not true when you consider that money today can buy
extraordinarily fancy stuff compared to even just a few years ago. I
remember digital SLRs in 1998 were selling for USD 18000 while today
you can get a good one for less than a 1000. If you look at catalogues
from even 2001, you will laugh at the primitive camcorders that came
with floppy drives etc. Plus do not forget the internet, wikipedia and
google are priceless yet free.

On 2007-05-23 09:12:29 -0700, "BDS" said:


"Mxsmanic" wrote

There are other considerations, though. People from the mid 60s to around
the
beginning of the 1970s had more disposable income than they do today.
Prices
have increased but wages have not kept pace, and since the 1970s the
situation
has been gradually getting worse.

In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell phones
(one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio, "starter"
homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand new
cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
"necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable income.

BDS

Indeed, the standard of living is much higher today than it was when I
was a kid. When I was born the standard of living in the United States
was no better than what it is in many third world countries today.
Television was rare, but not unheard of. Houses outside of town still
didn't have indoor plumbing. The Philippines today reminded me a great
deal of the US 50 years ago, only with cell phones and computers.

The Congressional Budget Office has just published a study showing that
low-wage households had an income in 2005 that was more than third
higher than what they had in 1991, adjusted for inflation. That is,
even after you take out the effects of inflation, the poor have more
than a third higher income now than they did in 1991. Bet you don't see
that on the news much.

CNN is famous for saying that the middle class is losing ground. In
fact, the income of the middle class increased 18% over the same
period, adjusted for inflation. Gee, do you suppose that CNN will now
admit they were wrong?

The rich did get richer: the wealthiest fifth had a 55% gain in real income.

The interesting thing, though, was the study also tracked what happened
to actual families. The people who were poor in 1991 are not the same
people who are poor today. 'Poverty,' such as it is, is heavily
weighted towards the young. After all, the work force will always have
young people and new immigrants working at entry level jobs. They don't
stay there.

CBO found that surveys of the same families (as opposed to 'classes'
which people do not remain in) showed that inflation adjusted income
for the poorest families rose 45% from 2001-2003. The poor do not stay
poor unless they have no one working in that family. The poor tend to
be kids just out of school, new families, and new immigrants. Funny
thing, they tend to get promotions and better jobs over time. Bet CNN
doesn't report that, either.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

CNN is famous for saying that the middle class is losing ground. In fact, the income of the middle class increased 18% over the same period, adjusted for inflation. Gee, do you suppose that CNN will now admit they were wrong?

Depends what you are measuring with respect to.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

birdog wrote:
Regarding the original question - are we flying less?

I was forced by health and age to stay on the ground for the last 20+ years.
I recently dropped by our local private grass strip where about 25 planes
are hangered. There was a single plane gassing up - no other activity on a
beautiful Sunday afternoon. Ran into a younger fellow I knew in my previous
life who commented that on a similar day back when I was still flying there
would always be several planes in the air, grinding out stop-and-goes or
just puttering around, whereas today the activity has virtually stopped.
There is even a 150 there that has been sitting outside for several years
and is virtually destroyed by the weather.

Why? My opinion, it's the expense. In the '60's and early 70's, our club
used to fly an old Champ for $4 an hour and a 172 for $16 an hour, wet. We
had an instructor in the club, and $300/$400 would get a beginner his
private. You could chug around in the Champ 'til your butt was numb, and
couldn't spend $20. The club was solvent and the hourly rates covered all
annual expenses. Upgrading required assessments - if memory serves, we paid
$1200 for the Champ and $8000 for the 172. We also had a Citabria that we
paid $5000 for. (All used, of course)

I think cost is part of the equation, but aviation has always been
expensive. Just for grins, I pulled up the inflation calculator at the
BLS web site and plugged in $16 for 1970, your number above for a 172.
The 2007 equivalent is $85.23. Guess what? Our local airport rents its
172 wet for ... drum roll please ... $85/hour!

I think it is cost, convenience (there are fewer small airports now),
availability of other activities, etc.


Matt

On 2007-05-23, birdog wrote:
Why? My opinion, it's the expense. In the '60's and early 70's, our club
used to fly an old Champ for $4 an hour and a 172 for $16 an hour, wet. We

$16 hr wet in 1970 dollars is $85 wet in 2006 dollars.

The Bay Area Aero Club in Houston, which I used to be a member of, rents
its 172 out at $75 hr today. So the price in real terms has actually
fallen.

It's not cost. It's something else. A general change in society is more
likely. How many people have spent beyond their means compared to 1970?
Are people less interested in doing an activity that takes months of
preparation and has limited utility? I honestly don't think cost is any
more of a factor today than it was in 1970 - and in real terms, people
are better off, too.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de