Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chimpanzee 773 days ago
Quantity? Absolutely. Quality? That’s debatable; it’s highly dependent on the goods in question and how quality is measured.
2 comments

I think you're underestimating the technological development in the last 80 years to a comical degree. In 1944, half the country didn't have flush toilets!
Anyone who does serious work with ancient technologies knows both that the older stuff was much more repairable but also needed to be repaired much more often.

Material and building science has advanced a mind boggling tremendous amount - even modern toilets are significantly better than an actual un-upgraded 40’s - if you can find it.

At the same time we can mass manufacture endless cheap plastic shit.

> At the same time we can mass manufacture endless cheap plastic shit.

You say it like that's a bad thing.

Good or bad are subjective, but "endless cheap plastic shit" certainly does lower the average quality of goods available today.
What do you care about the overall average quality? You don't need to buy them.

You only need to worry about perhaps the average of the things you buy.

Exactly - what most people are really complaining about when they say everything is crap these days is that other people make different decisions about purchasing, or that they wish they were forced to buy the higher quality item.

It is a bit annoying to have to search and find high-quality items, but it's still doable.

Some reasons one might care about average quality:

1. Environmental damage

2. Higher search costs

3. Higher transaction costs

4. Opportunity cost

And remember that just a few years before in 1936, there was the Rural Electrification Act to provide rural people in the US (who had basically been living 19th-century style) with electricity, which was standard for town and city dwellers for decades.
Just because something is higher quality does not mean it has higher subjective value. E.g. i still think i come out ahead with cheap clothes and a laptop then someone 100 years ago with higher quality clothes.
I’d rather have a house than shitty fast fashion but your mileage may vary
Probably don't want a common house from 1924 with lead paint, an indoor wooden stove for heating and an outhouse.
Also average houses from that time period were tiny, with about ~1000 sq ft of livable space. That people were expected to raise families in. My apartment (which is just for me and my cat) is bigger than that!

https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes...

If you can find a neighbourhood that's as dangerous and unsafe as those a hundred years ago, the house would be very cheap compared to GDP per capita.
A better comparison would be this: would you rather have 3 suits that you wore everyday that cost a months wages, or 30 shirts and pants that cost a weeks wages but are lower quality.

(Also, IMO, houses today are much higher quality than in the past as soon as you account for safety)

The answer differs whether you answer it selfishly or with the greater good in mind (resource use/waste, pollution, etc)