The problem is distribution of wealth. Never since the 17 century or something has the distribution been so skewed toward the already rich people. ie. the rich get richer and the not so rich get poorer. It is described in the best seller book by this guy I don’t remember the name at the moment.
I don’t think that’s true.
In centuries past, in most of what we today call Europe, nearly the whole population lived off the patch of land which their local “ruler” (sitting in his castle) let them cultivate, didn’t travel outside their village, etc.
Maybe the gap has widened during a specific part of the post WW2 era…
But then it depends on what you value. Today’s Middle Class is mostly stressed out, trying to pay for the stuff they feel they need. I don’t think the peasant population in the 17th Century was too stressed out…
House prices are a tricky one… the recent massive inflation is clearly due to the very low interest rates. Once you take that out (limit the view to further back) you see house prices tracking salaries fairly well, which is what one would expect.
I guess GA prices (alioth’s example above) are due to the much lower volumes – of the order of 10x to 30x lower.
Peter wrote:
Once you take that out (limit the view to further back) you see house prices tracking salaries fairly well, which is what one would expect.
Not in Switzerland – average annual house price increase 6-8%, average salary increase 1.5-2%. That’s a substantial difference.
Maybe you should also reflect median income versus median airline ticket price.
That goes a long way to explaining why small airplanes are so much less desirable today. And one can argue that for 99.9% of the population, that is a very positive thing.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
With the emergence of cheap air fares and a multitude of loco’s in Europe the middle class can travel for two lifetimes for the price of a second hand spam can.
Already did 
Air travel with airlines has become astonishingly cheap. If one books in advance, one can now fly to NYC and back cheaper than taking a train for 400km in Germany. That is amazing but also scares me a lot – I always wonder if the pilot, the engineer or the mechanic didn’t get paid well and didn’t care about his job.
The book by Thomas Piketty: ’Capital in the Twenty-First Century’ does indeed explain how things develop, and has developed the last centuries. The reason is that the value of capital, stocks, properties, industrial investments – just about everything grows faster than salaries. The situation is in fact very similar to what lead to the French revolution. The main difference is that wealth is not connected to land anymore, but to capital and investments. While the average middle class worker have to use half his working life (usually more), just to pay the mortgage of his house, the rich just gets richer doing nothing. This has been going in in the USA longer than in Europe.
This is the only reason why houses, airplanes, boats whatever it is we produce, is more expensive today compared with the salaries than it was before. The money is channeled away from the common people and to a small number of very few rich people.
LeSving wrote:
The book by Thomas Piketty: ’Capital in the Twenty-First Century’ does indeed explain how things develop, and has developed the last centuries.
Just like on the thread about quantum physics: people with a bit more knowledge on the subject will tell you that it’s flawed. Piketty was en vogue for some time among leftists but not taken serious by professionals. It’s mostly wrong what he writes — wrong conclusions drawn from wrong data.
Why so personal achima?
Do you have a good explanation why we cannot afford tings we produce ourselves anymore while we could only 30 years ago?
We have 3 cell phones each, don’t we? A liter of milk in the supermarket here costs 55 Euro cents. Even people on welfare can afford more meat a week than middle class families could some decades ago. The percentage of household income spent on nutrition and on housing has declined in Germany.
There is just one simple explanation for the GA airplanes: they are not interesting anymore. Very few people care. Many more things to do today than spending whole days at airfields. No utility value with cheap carriers everywhere.
There no economic benefit to buying a new plane.
I would like to buy a new training aircraft to replace one of our tired c150.
But there is nothing to buy that gives me lower operating costs (C152 excepted) so we overhauled the engine another 4 grand tasting itup and we carry on.
Why so personal
I can see nothing personal in a quote like
wrong conclusions drawn from wrong data
As for the utility value of light planes: on the one hand it has decreased relatively, given the abundant offer of low-cost airlines. On the other hand though, travelling distances per private plane has become a good deal easier than it was a few decades ago, given the internet access to information and reporting tools, and the high functionality to cost ratio of glass cockpits. The crux is indeed that light aviation has not the slightest bit left of sex appeal. I remember when I was a boy, I had a distant relative who flew a Piper Cub from the local aeroclub, and he was a demi-god in my eyes; probably also in my parents’. Today it takes a twin jet to get any envy.
