Br. Wingnut,
you have raised a valid question/concern/point. Way back when, in the old days, Freemasons rarely belonged to multiple bodies the way we do today. My grandfather indicated that lodge dues, when based on the economy as it was, were at a higher ratio compared to personal income.
I have long wondered what is the purpose of needing to belong to multiple organizations when it is tough to devote yourself properly active to one, maybe two. Add to that one's family duties, work responsibilities and anything else, and there is a shortage of time at the end of that 24 inch gauge.
I have held membership on both sides of the masonic coin. Here is my breakdown;
On the PHA side, yearly dues ranged from $50 too $100. PHA members are only permitted membership in 1 subordinate lodge.
On the mainstream side, yealy dues ranged from a low $35 to an exorbitant $450. Mainstream GL's typically permit dual or plural memberships. At one point while a mainstream mason, I belonged to seven subordinate lodges (5 in the USA, 2 in Barbados) for a whopping $1200 per year (just for subordinate lodges).
Now, a strange anomaly I noticed was that the lodges with the higher dues structure had better attendance than lodges with a lower scale of fees. I simply took it that if you are committed enough to pay a higher rate of dues, you are often more committed to your lodge (I know I was).
Lodges were not intended to be so large(like they are today) that they grow like weeds squeezing out the purpose of lodge, fraternal relationships! I have wondered what it would be like if lodges would split more often, and new lodges formed with smaller memberships. It would seem that more members may be inclined to participate because there would actually be something for them to do, and they would feel part of the organization.
I have found this thread interesting and appreciate the time you put into pointing out the average dues structure.