Pilot Shortage

[Fozzy]

B19,
Don't need no stinking facts. Let us just ask our owners what they are comfortable with.
NJA makes a point of talking about pilot experience with our owners. Don't see many other companies doing that.

Go back under your bridge.

 

[gunfyter]

Hey I am dredging up this blast from the past... because I found a YOUTUBE clip explaining it from Humphrey Bogart's TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE.

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQyqvFVe4Y4 as the old man explains why Gold costs so much....

You will find similar language in Wealth of Nations section wages of labor....

Smith says any father could invest the monies and send his son to Apprentice with a Cobbler and be reasonable sure his son would succeed in that career. But to invest in the education and experience it takes to practice medicine or law .... Many will not succeed.

The successful applicant must be compensated not only for the time and capital he has expended... but for that of all the others who tried and failed!

IOW, 1000 people begin flight training hoping to make it in this industry... 250 make it.... The ROI of all the funds expended on flight training by the 1000 people must be recouped by the 250 of us who remain.

This is why Pilot pay should be several times the pay of most other workers.

I have invested a lot of money on Pitching and Batting lessons for 2 boys. But only those parents whose sons make the major leagues will get a good return on such an investment. If i get one scholarship out of it i will think i am ahead.

According to Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations... http://geolib.com/smith.adam/won1-10.html

[SIZE=-2][24][/SIZE] Fifthly, the wages of labour in different. employments vary according to the probability or improbability of success in them.

 

[wacoflyr]

Ah, god,.... Here we go again. And I am right there with you. Yes, pilots should be well paid. But take an honest look around the cockpit. Was it difficult for us to get here? You bet. Did many fall by the wayside? Absolutely, and a few more probably should have. Still, what remains sometimes gives me pause....

You don't need a degree to do this. In fact, you just need a decent grasp of simple math, geometry, and some basic english skills. Most people acquire the necessary basics by say, the tenth grade. We all learn our way around the compass rose, manage to understand a few basic aerodynamic principles, and then,... some can, and some can't. I used to teach this, and I couldn't tell you ahead of time who would succeed, and who wouldn't. I still can't. But the fact remains that some good, intelligent people do not have what it takes to do this, and some true simpletons seem to be able to.

All that having been said, the investment of time, money, sweat and tears is such a high hurdle (and getting higher) that I believe upward pressure on our payscale will only increase over the next few years. The banks will not finance junior to the tune of $100,000 anymore, not for a starting pay in the low twenties.

I hope we are both right. My fear is that because this has not happened in the past, it may not happen in the future. We would certainly be bucking the trend, as professionals of all stripes lose income to the people with capital. If the supply is restricted enough, though, we may finally have some power. Wouldn't that be a great day?

Waco.

 

[gunfyter]

I think you are Right On....

But what did you think of the old man explaining why Gold costs what it does? It represents the labor of not only those who were successful, but those who invested, worked and FAILED!

I currently have a good gig ... and I am happy with it. But I always run into jealous people who say ... we don't deserve what we have.

 

[glasspilot]

Thats why you shouldn't take investment advice from TV or Hollywood. It's a play. It's entertainment. It's not real and is pretend.

The price of Gold has nothing to do with the labor of the guy who digs it up or the guys who failed to dig it up. Gold is a commodity and it has perceived safety as there is only so much and it last forever. As people get nervous in other investment they turn to where they think there money will be safest and Gold comes up.

Others speculate on nervousness in general and when they think others will get more nervous they are likely to bet that Gold will go up further based on the above logic. So there's two pressures driving the real price of Gold up and neither have to do with the labor.

I honestly believe that if the world economy ever collapsed to the point where your Gold investment would save you then it's collapsed to the point where Gold won't help you. Guns, bullets and a survival book would go a lot further at that point.

I realize I'm just a pilot on a pilot forum but you did just quote a movie from Hollywood.

 

[gunfyter]

Shouldn't take investment advice from a Movie.... I wish I had bought Gold at $20. Looks like it was good advice. Its up 80,000%

But what I was trying to do was relate the old man's explanation to the value of

...Of Wages and Profit in the different Employments of Labour and Stock ( Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith 1776ook 1, Chapter 10)

​

"...Fifthly, the wages of labour in different. employments vary according to the probability or improbability of success in them..."

The old man explains that the successful Gold Prospector must be compensated not only for his own labor ... but for the 999 others who did not succeed.

Wealth of Nations:

The probability that any particular person shall ever be qualified for the employment to which he is educated is very different in different occupations. In the greater part of mechanic trades, success is almost certain; but very uncertain in the liberal professions. Put your son apprentice to a shoemaker, there is little doubt of his learning to make a pair of shoes; but send him to study the law, it is at least twenty to one if ever he makes such proficiency as will enable him to live by the business. In a perfectly fair lottery, those who draw the prizes ought to gain all that is lost by those who draw the blanks. In a profession where twenty fail for one that succeeds, that one ought to gain all that should have been gained by the unsuccessful twenty. The counsellor-at-law who, perhaps, at near forty years of age, begins to make something by his profession, ought to receive the retribution, not only of his own so tedious and expensive education, but that of more than twenty others who are never likely to make anything by it. How extravagant soever the fees of counsellors-at-law may sometimes appear, their real retribution is never equal to this. Compute in any particular place what is likely to be annually gained, and what is likely to be annually spent, by all the different workmen in any common trade, such as that of shoemakers or weavers, and you will find that the former sum will generally exceed the latter. But make the same computation with regard to all the counsellors and students of law, in all the different inns of court, and you will find that their annual gains bear but a very small proportion to their annual expense, even though you rate the former as high, and the latter as low, as can well be done. The lottery of the law, therefore, is very far from being a perfectly fair lottery; and that, as well as many other liberal and honourable professions, are, in point of pecuniary gain, evidently under-recompensed.

This is one reason why pilots need to be compensated well ... The lottery of Aviation is also far from perfectly fair and "under-recompensed".

 

[glasspilot]

Sure. 90 to 95% of all restaurants fail. By your logic the price of our food need to cover all the costs of the successful restaurants and the failures. Maybe the true cost of food should be much less.

I see your point. I don't think it applies to Gold or much else as value is very complicated. Supply / demand is part of it obviously but you're adding difficulty of attainment and leaving out perception.

 

[gunfyter]

Its not food that should cost more ... but the profits of people who succeed in businesses that need to be greater.... Thats why we need more tax cuts for the rich.

 

[glasspilot]

Holy cow you just jumped off a ledge.

Government costs X. You can argue different parties want X to be bigger or smaller...but at the end of the day it costs X to maintain a military, roads, an FAA and a TSA. A CIA and the salary of congress. NASA and Wellfare and US debt. It all has a cost and that is X.

We don't need to worry about ensuring profits to restaurant owners or airline execs. That's their job. We need to ensure we maintain a country where smart ideas succeed with effort and talent rises to the top. If, through your hard work and the system of government that enabled it you do succeed then you have a debt and that debt is a higher tax bracket.

Like it or not we have a progressive tax in this country. It's fair. Those who prosper pay more. Those who struggle for survival pay less. If we instituted a fair tax then the super rich would get a 2% tax break and the poor would get a 40% tax hike.

That's not how it works and it would be ruinous if it did work that way. Stop watching Fox. Ron Paul wants to do away with the FAA. Market forces will prevail. Do you really think that's a good idea? Ya think rest rules would stay in place if Delta, American, United and NetJets could operate any dang rest they wanted? Or maybe there should be a rule and maybe taxes should pay for an agency to enforce that rule.

You look at how many of your rules rest right up against FAA regulation and get back to me.

 

[pilotyip]

Thats why we need more tax cuts for the rich.

What is rich? many people in this country would consider many people posting here as rich.

Median Income, the 2008 census reported the medium income as $50,233. The PewResearch Center suggests that the middle income range is 75 percent to 150 percent of the median income. This would make the middle class income range $37,675 to $75,350. To most, this range seems small, and surveys conducted by the PewResearch Center find that many who fall outside this range still consider themselves middle class.

So is everyone making more than 75K to be considered rich?