Car prices are still insane.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I pick helicopter because it's insanely difficult to learn.

Also because of the TV show Airwolf when I was a kid.

I think both the autogyro and the helicopter's controls are pretty straight forward, but are more complicated than a fixed wing aircraft as you have such variables as rotor speed. The helicopter also adds colective pitch control.

I like the autogyro because of it's history and how Juan de la Cierva built it to overcome certain dangers of fixed wing aircraft at the time and ironically decided to travel once in a fixed wing aircraft and died from it.

Also, as a driver that takes the back roads I like to go slow and smell the flowers, and autogyros and helicopters can go slower than typical fixed wing aircraft. In both there's the potential for vertical emergency landing.

[freebeard]

https://jetoptera.com

https://jetoptera.com › news › completes-fourth-usaf-awarded-contract
Jetoptera Completes Fourth USAF Awarded contract
11 Jan 2023Jetoptera has completed a fourth Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contract awarded by the US Air Force that realized the first experimental evaluation of Jetoptera's revolutionary concept of "3-in-1" propulsion, which enables aircraft to take off and land vertically (VTOL), yet accelerate to jet speeds in forward flight configuration- a High Speed VTOL (HSVTOL).

https://www.futureflight.aero › news-article › 2022-08-22 › us-air-forces-hsvtol-challenge-propels-jetoptera-fluidic-propulsion
USAF Challenge Propels Jetoptera Fluidic Propulsion Technology ...
22 Aug 2022Jetoptera's HSVTOL concept is one of seven designs, including four VTOLs and three STOLs, that utilize the company's patented fluidic propulsion system (FPS). It is designed to carry payloads of up to 800 pounds (360 kg) across a range of up to 400 miles (630 km), at a speed of 400 mph. The company says the technology is scalable and can be ...

Jetoptera's Bladeless Propulsion System

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I always wanted to fly an autogyro or an airship.

What do you think of the https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Aeromodeller+II


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/10...e9a058c4e2.jpg

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

If it's total household income, then I'd say that yes, being married and having a wife that works so you can pay a nanny still makes it look like you're richer on paper. Your overall household income is more.

Would the money from roommates be considered income? Or it could be that if you have several roommates in a house you have more earners in your household, or so I would think. It depends on what you consider a household to be or what you consider income, or at least what the person think's who's putting together that income table.

The data is below. Family households are either married couples or single parents with kids. Nonfamily households are co-habituating couples or singles living with roommates. Living alone is exactly what it says.

As you can see single living either with roommates or by themselves so worse than single parents. (Likely because most of our social assistance is targeted at children or seniors)

A typical US family would need childcare for a maximum of 8 years (The fertility rate of 1.6 children per woman x 5 years before school starts)

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I think both the autogyro and the helicopter's controls are pretty straight forward, but are more complicated than a fixed wing aircraft as you have such variables as rotor speed.

Rubbing your belly and patting your head is pretty straight forward, but difficult to coordinate.

People with no flying experience have a chance of landing a plane, but no chance of landing a helicopter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kly8soer0hY

I'd take an autogyro though.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

There's probably a causation vs correlation issue with some of this data.

Poor people aren't poor because they are single, they are single because they are poor.

That is certainly part of it. Someone that is poor and without a job or a very low paying job is generally considered a poor marriage candidate. On the other hand living alone is much more expensive than living with a partner - which means there is less budget for things like education that raise one's income. If my wife an I hadn't been married I doubt she could have afforded to go back to school for 5 years to get the degrees that allow here to earn much more than the dollar above minimum wage she was making when we got married.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'd have way more money if I were single, having roommates take care of the mortgage, taxes, and insurance. I'd be eating less costly food. No child related expenses. Tons of free time to work on profitable ventures...

True for you but as you have said many times - you aren't normal. Most people get tired of having roommates and ditch them as soon as they can afford to do so even if that means they miss other financial milestones. The vast majority of the singles I know are living alone

Our household fits that data precisely, with us being in the 5th quintile and 2 earners. The thing is, the 2nd income doesn't make us anything because we have to hire a nanny and pay taxes on the income earned to pay the nanny. It almost wouldn't matter financially if one of us stayed home.

Yes, but childcare is a temporary expense that is only needed until a child reaches the age they can go to school.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

If my wife an I hadn't been married I doubt she could have afforded to go back to school for 5 years to get the degrees that allow here to earn much more than the dollar above minimum wage she was making when we got married.

My wife was making $10/hr and living with 4 other girls in a house in Kenton when I met her. Every friend she had was also renting a room in a house with many other people. Portland probably isn't typical.

My only point is that being poor and single is mostly a decision.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My only point is that being poor and single is mostly a decision.

Yes, to a degree. Although your economic opportunities can be influenced by what side of the tracks you're born on.

People (or I) shouldn't complain about decisions they (or I) make if there's an obvious solution within reach.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

People (or I) shouldn't complain.

It can be left at that.

There is no utility in a victim mentality even if there's no question the person is being victimized. Even a person sitting in a gulag is not served by a complaint mentality.

Born on the wrong side of the tracks isn't something to dwell on, but a problem to solve. I was born on the wrong side of the street, went to prison, and have no college degree or credentials, and I'm doing great. I felt sorry for myself for about an hour once, when our work crew ran out of water before noon on a sweltering day, and we had 5 more hours of work. Then I worked harder, channeling my frustration into what needed to get done.

That's probably mostly an innate character trait, and something difficult to learn. I've always had the sense that I've got great capability to affect circumstances, or to adapt to them.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It can be left at that.

There is no utility in a victim mentality even if there's no question the person is being victimized. Even a person sitting in a gulag is not served by a complaint mentality.

Born on the wrong side of the tracks isn't something to dwell on, but a problem to solve. I was born on the wrong side of the street, went to prison, and have no college degree or credentials, and I'm doing great. I felt sorry for myself for about an hour once, when our work crew ran out of water before noon on a sweltering day, and we had 5 more hours of work. Then I worked harder, channeling my frustration into what needed to get done.

That's probably mostly an innate character trait, and something difficult to learn. I've always had the sense that I've got great capability to affect circumstances, or to adapt to them.

While there are plenty of people that have a pity-me attitude when they shouldn't I still do not agree that "where there's a will there's a way" is truly valid.

I assume you were born in the USA, in a country that's rich and has a lot of opportunity and antidiscrimination laws. There's a good chance you're also probably a man that's also white. If true, that right there would put you in about the most socially and economically favorable possition there is on the entire planet.

Sure, there are those stories of how some poor kid in Africa where people make $1 a day strives hard to make things better for himself and ends up working his way up to being a millionaire. But those kinds of stories are more about luck and coincidence than the actual hard work. There are a lot of people in this world who have worked extremely hard their whole life and tried to make as good of financial decisions as possible and still ended up poor and with nothing to show for all they did.

Another thing to is that every choice usually has a trade off. A single guy who doesn't work may have a hard time finding someone to marry him. But a guy who works too much and doesn't spend hardly any time with his family is also asking for a divorce. While money and riches can have an effect on a person's wellbeing and happiness they aren't necessarily a measurement of said wellbeing and happiness either.

For an example I've come to ecomodder in order to save time and money on my vehicle(s), meaning I can use more of my work efforts for other things instead of mostly paying for a car. That work may be secular or it may be something else. Planting a garden might not pay in money but it may allow a person to reap other valuables in quite a literal sense.