Oh yeah: no body cavity searches getting past the gate, we had legroom, free food on the plane, free baggage, and they didn't blare CNN in the airports like some Orwell dystopia, or ads for the airline on the airplane telescreen. The planes were better too; 747 was super common and comfy (now you need to fly the Luftwaffe or British Airways, and the seats aint what they used to be), and if you were loaded, you could take the Concorde across the pond for a price which seems comically cheap these days.
Because while air travel has undoubtedly gotten less comfortable, in most (if not all?) cases it's also gotten cheaper. With every passing decade air travel because accessible to broader and broader swaths of the economic pyramid. Now it's at the point where the cost of the taxi to a London airport can cost more than the airfare of whatever budget airline flight I'd be on.
I am [not really] too young to have flown on the Concorde, but a Googling of "Concorde flight cost" suggested between $6000 and $12000 round trip for NYC-LON flights. That doesn't strike me as cheap.
As my friends and family form families, they either stay in the city.
After all, having a kid or two and staying in NYC or SF is the ultimate status symbol.
Or they move to more livable cities such as Philadelphia from NYC or Austin from SF or Pittsburgh from Chicago.
The exception is moving back to the suburbs to be close to our boomer parents who of course still live there.
Seriously, no one I know my age (35) willingly moves to the suburbs. Curious if this is my bubble or consistent.
- passive (consumer doesn't spend money)
- fluid (trillions of transactions)
Meanwhile in the market I can decide down to the level of "no, these oranges aren't sufficiently orange-y for me".
I'm no market fundamentalist, mind you. I'd rather find ways to make the public sector more responsive to public feedback than through occasional elections.