I believe some courses being built today are, if not just as good, almost as good as the best the GA has to offer. I truly hope for the benefit for all that this trend continues with SH, Ballyneal, Bandon, Friars Head, Rustic and Stone Eagle being examples of what can and will be done in the future. However, I believe the work that has and will be performed will be done by a much smaller group of arch compared to the majority that is not producing designs that are both great for all levels of golfers and will stand the test of time.
The question is will the vast majority of golfers be able to tell the difference? Can they tell the difference now? Remove the "eye candy" from PB and can they tell why holes like number 8 are so good? Remove a golfer from the Orange County wasteland in So Cal where he plays all of his golf and put him on Riviera and can he tell why the course is so good? Does he WANT to know? I WANT to believe the "masses" will demand better and better courses, but by who's definition? Do the majority want to have to think their way around, a trait I think all would agree is an important ingredient to a "great" course. Does strategy mean something to the majority? I don't think, JK, that the answer in the affirmative is mutually exclusive to the well to do because they can get there in their Gulfstream IV's. Remember, many of the GA's courses were changed by the wealthy class back in the day, in many cases for the worse because they didn't "get it". And expensive courses don't equate to greatness. Too much money has been spent to artificially bolster the perception that more is more. I do agree with some of your points about ease of travel and communication.