algrove Posted August 9, 2012 Share #21 Posted August 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) @Pico Why not look at the prices of various other German luxury products in a country over the last X years. It seems to me that Leica price comparisons could be more meaningful this way since currency changes would be somewhat nullified if you compare prices in the local currencies. This could also help bring out abnormal price increases over a full range of German exports to a given country. Since German inflation was held in check for many years (thinking of the 80's and 90's) versus the rest of the world, this could be a very interesting comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 9, 2012 Share #22 Posted August 9, 2012 @Pico Why not look at the prices of various other German luxury products in a country over the last X years. It seems to me that Leica price comparisons could be more meaningful this way since currency changes would be somewhat nullified if you compare prices in the local currencies. This could also help bring out abnormal price increases over a full range of German exports to a given country. Since German inflation was held in check for many years (thinking of the 80's and 90's) versus the rest of the world, this could be a very interesting comparison. Indeed, Germany has a stunningly impressive economic system. There is so much to admire from my point-of-view. If I studied more German quality goods I would become more distressed than I am now by our US economy. IMHO, the M model Leicas to date (August, 2012) are not really luxury items because they are highly utilitarian and do things that other modern cameras do not, or as I wrote elsewhere (in effect), the Leica M is distinguished among other cameras by virtue of having a high quality build and a relatively sparse but highly rational option set. It is also enduring, less ephemeral than other cameras due to its place in the rarefied class of pure rangefinder cameras. Just my two-bits worth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 9, 2012 Author Share #23 Posted August 9, 2012 Way too simplistic a comparison, ignoring a plethora of variables. You're comparing based on gross income, but taxation has changed, radically affecting net income. Just a couple examples: In 1954 there was no such thing as a minimum wage, or a Medicare deduction from one's income. In 1954 the middle class was employing the lower class, not supporting it with welfare and other entitlements. In 1954 trade unions were just beginning to extort management with no care about the future ramifications. Partly that was because in 1954 there were not off-shore labor alternatives like the BRIC nations of today. The largest percentage of consumers in 1954 had grown up in the depression and come of age during WWII, they were at once frugal to a fault and rabidly patriotic. In 1954 the status-symbol car was a Cadillac, with Lincoln and Imperial distant second and third. "Foreign" brands were symbols of ecclecticism, not status. To be fair, the affluent, rich and super-rich were not as many as today. Altogether, the comparison of Leica prices then and now is very complex and entails considering sociology as well as economics. I agree with all of that, but in many ways the simplest comparison is the easiest. None of the issues you have referred to boosts notional income, or reduces the cost of a Leica camera. The critical point is to illustrate that the real cost of a Leica camera over the ages, by reference to purchasing power. What that shows is that, for a household on an average income, A standard Leica camera and lens (standard at the time) was always very expensive, but has become more so. The data also showed that for a Leica buyer, the price probably hasn't changed that much, relative to income (this is guesswork) due to the increased spread in incomes. To me, Leica has never been an accessible brand. Cameras are expensive anyway; Leica more so. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 9, 2012 Share #24 Posted August 9, 2012 Way too simplistic a comparison, ignoring a plethora of variables. You're comparing based on gross income, but taxation has changed, radically affecting net income. Just a couple examples: In 1954 there was no such thing as a minimum wage, or a Medicare deduction from one's income. In 1954 the middle class was employing the lower class, not supporting it with welfare and other entitlements. I'm afraid that is incorrect, at least for the USA. There has been a minimum wage standard since the late Thirties, and social welfare programs existed in the original colonies (borrowed from the British poor laws) and and in 1954 there were a significant number of them. As far as taxes go, everyone paid taxes except for the very rich and those taxes supported social welfare. And let us not forget that Federal taxes increased dramatically during WWII and continued to be high for many years. Taxes in 1954 were high! In 1954 trade unions were just beginning to extort management with no care about the future ramifications. Innuendo. Those for whom the union members worked were pure capitalists who "extorted" without forethought, and many utterly failed due to that lack of forward vision, and not due to labor wages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 9, 2012 Share #25 Posted August 9, 2012 social welfare programs existed in the original colonies (borrowed from the British poor laws) and and in 1954 there were a significant number of them. But there wasn't a disproportionate number of able-bodied people on the dole and gaming the system then as there is now. Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist until the mid-60s. ADC existed in '54 but it wasn't until the 60s that elegibility requirements were drastically eased, the result of the NWRO. Those for whom the union members worked were pure capitalists And in 1954 being a pure capitalist was an admirable thing. In fact, aspiring to anything but capitalism was likely to get you blacklisted Sorry for all the OT stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 9, 2012 Share #26 Posted August 9, 2012 But there wasn't a disproportionate number of able-bodied people on the dole and gaming the system then as there is now. Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist until the mid-60s. ADC existed in '54 but it wasn't until the 60s that elegibility requirements were drastically eased, the result of the NWRO. You might enjoy studying Wisconsin's relatively recent experience in 'workfare' where able-bodied people on welfare were required to work. It was a disaster. It broke up families, and actually made some people even poorer. And in 1954 being a pure capitalist was an admirable thing. In fact, aspiring to anything but capitalism was likely to get you blacklisted Did you know that Mr. Eastman (Kodak) was enormously generous to his employees way-back-when? He was the first to implement profit-sharing, too. Some might have called him a socialist if his company were not so successful. Also .... well, from Wikepedia: He (Eastman) was a major philanthropist, establishing the Eastman School of Music, and schools of dentistry and medicine at the University of Rochester; contributing to RIT and the construction of MIT's second campus on the Charles River; and donating to Tuskegee and Hampton universities. (historically Black institutions) In addition, he provided funds for clinics in London and other European cities to serve low-income residents. (emphasis is mine) I must admit that the USA was more tolerant of so-called socialist ideas in Mr. Eastman's day. At least the US had not yet gone ballistic and crazy about the idea yet. We in Minnesota had a socialist Governor at one time! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 9, 2012 Share #27 Posted August 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fast forward to 2013. We in the US once had a far left socialist President at one time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 9, 2012 Author Share #28 Posted August 9, 2012 Fast forward to 2013. We in the US once had a far left socialist President at one time. Who? I can think of no "far left" President of the US - at least, not by the standards of the rest of the World. By US standards, my country has been communist since the late 1930s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted August 10, 2012 Share #29 Posted August 10, 2012 IMHO, the M model Leicas to date (August, 2012) are not really luxury items because they are highly utilitarian and do things that other modern cameras do not. So is a high-quality fountain pen, but that does not explain the pricing rationale for a Montblanc Mohandas Gandhi edition for USD 25,000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted August 10, 2012 Share #30 Posted August 10, 2012 That and living with parents perhaps. Added benefit of living in Singapore you can actually forfeit having a car, not small expenditure in other developed countries. I don't live in Singapore but if forced to choose between my M kit and my Toyota Corolla, I'd be extolling the glories of riding the bus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 10, 2012 Share #31 Posted August 10, 2012 You might enjoy studying Wisconsin's relatively recent experience in 'workfare' where able-bodied people on welfare were required to work. It was a disaster. Can't say I'm shocked. The old saying applies about leading a horse to water. We in Minnesota had a socialist Governor at one time! You in Minnesota also elected a pro wrestler Governor at one time : D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted August 10, 2012 Share #32 Posted August 10, 2012 You in Minnesota also elected a pro wrestler Governor at one time : D I doubt that he'd want the heartache that comes with the job but if the former Governor of that great state were interested, we here in the U.S. are in sore need an upgrade in the Oval Office... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted August 10, 2012 Share #33 Posted August 10, 2012 I started acquiring Leica gear as a college kid working part-time in what would now be considered a Leica Boutique (a kid in the candy store). My first Leica was a M2R. It cost me about $160 and the 35 Summaron ran another $100. This represented about a month's wages - used gear and part-time wages. When I bought my M4 a bit later, it ran $400 and the 50 Summicron was another $200 (or so, memory fades). Again, about a month's wages (after taxes). My M9 - if it was a straight cash deal - would have cost me about a month's profits (pre-recession). Now that we're coming out of this *$%^@#@& recession/depression, I expect that the MM will still run a month's profits. In the end, the cost of a Leica is now and always has been a financial stretch. A month of one's life in exchange for a bit of metal, wires and glass... sounds crazy but, in my experience, that's the ante for this game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted August 10, 2012 Share #34 Posted August 10, 2012 You in Minnesota also elected a pro wrestler Governor at one time : D The running man with Arnold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 10, 2012 Share #35 Posted August 10, 2012 In Germany Leica has been offering financing schemes on a regular basis for many years. Vistek and Photocreative in Toronto are offering leasing options to almost anything they carry ... both are official Leica dealers by the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 10, 2012 Share #36 Posted August 10, 2012 Fast forward to 2013. We in the US once had a far left socialist President at one time. Not so fast ... think about 2017? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 10, 2012 Share #37 Posted August 10, 2012 I can think of no "far left" President of the US - at least, not by the standards of the rest of the World. By US standards, my country has been communist since the late 1930s So what is China, North Korea? There was a rumor a couple weeks ago that Leica might even list their stock in Hong Kong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 10, 2012 Share #38 Posted August 10, 2012 Now that we're coming out of this *$%^@#@& recession/depression, I expect that the MM will still run a month's profits. . "coming out of this recession"! You've got to be kidding me. What planet do you live on? 2013 will be just like the number 13-bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted August 10, 2012 Share #39 Posted August 10, 2012 Not so fast ... think about 2017? If the current trend in national level U.S. politics continues to its logical conclusion - that being the propping up of progressively less qualified schmendricks to run for the highest offices - in about three more presidential election cycles we will see Bevis and Butthead elected as president and vice president. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesk8752 Posted August 10, 2012 Share #40 Posted August 10, 2012 If the current trend in national level U.S. politics continues to its logical conclusion - that being the propping up of progressively less qualified schmendricks to run for the highest offices - in about three more presidential election cycles we will see Bevis and Butthead elected as president and vice president. I fear that they are already here... Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.