Isn't this an
economic utility theory type discussion from another angle, whereby one person's measure of another being rich is their being able to afford to spend a substantial (relative to the observer) amount of money on a discretionary activity (relative to the observer) that has no tangible or intangible benefits (relative to the observer)?
If a person cannot be "educated"
into valuing the act of flying or owning an aircraft then they're not going to value the act of "throwing money away" on such a past time & may well view someone who does do this as having more money than is "fair" (see rich).
There is also a side discussion to be had about where the middle ground between being poor & rich sits & what would define that but this of course varies wildly within & across national borders.
GA Flying isn't necessarily for the rich but a certain level of disposable income is undeniably required to practice it as a hobby.
It is an activity that can certainly be viewed, if not as elitist then as something of an exclusive past time (you can't, or at least shouldn't, just pitch up & take a plane out by yourself without sufficient training & licensing
) which is fundamentally different to owning a boat / jet ski / exec car / large pile of drugs
.
That's my twopennorth & please don't get me started on the differences in the availability of decent occupational pensions in the days when everyone expected to die relatively early on to these days of living forever.
Regards all, enq.