Of course, the reality is that people are living longer and longer. We can expect someone aged 60 or 65 to live another 20 years or so. I don't know if we've ever looked at what it costs us per member to provide all the services we offer (beyond the hard dollars we spend to produce and distribute QST each month). I've also often wondered if the use of those services varies by age (I'd wager it does). It might even be that members in retirement have more time for amateur radio and therefore use more services, but maybe not. It seems to me that what it costs to support senior members should be considered in the equation rather than assuming that our cost for supporting members is a constant number over their entire membership. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 07:02 AM 1/10/2007, Frank Fallon wrote:

I still believe that there is NOT a big enough differential for regular life membership for those over 60 or 65. I made a study motion about two years ago for A & F to look at it. They decided to do nothing. I still do not agree with that decision. We loose the membership of many of our non life members in the final years of their life as they choose not to renew when the go into assisted living or some other facility. Also, despite the fact that many hams have more money at the point where they retire (less expenses) we do nothing to encourage them to seek life membership at that point.

I support any proposal that helps to encourage older members to become life members.

Frank....N2FF....

Andy Oppel andy@andyoppel.com andy_oppel@alamedanet.net