Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brands got worse on purpose

worseonpurpose.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 179 posts

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#11

Post by giraffe_lady »

lamasery wrote: post #5

I think there's a lot of hidden inflation in this. Or, if not outright inflation, something similar to it. Look at what it costs to get a work shirt (I mean, for physical labor, "blue collar", heavy chambray or something along those lines) of comparable quality & materials to what was in a Sears catalog in the 1930s or ordered by the US military in the 1940s, which in neither case could be regarded as super-fancy . Y…

I don't know what the right term is but yeah it's not quite inflation. IIRC households pre-ww2 were spending 15% of their budget on clothing, and the farther back you go the higher that gets even to the point where the concept of "budget" breaks down and the entire family's activities were oriented around procuring food and cloth.

Good fabric has always been and is still very expensive! We have created much cheaper alternatives but if you want the quality your predecessors had you better be prepared to look 15% of your household budget in the face. Homemade isn't even an alternative here. Most of the cost of good clothing is in the fabric and there's just no way around this.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#13

Post by somewhatgoated »

Just but either professional (as in practitioners of a trade us it) or military products — those tend to be much better than “consumers” products. They cost more but they will last a lifetime. Of course not super applicable to every aspect of fashion, but I’ve been doing this for all kinds of products for years and was never disappointed. For fashion I would recommend to hit up small designers, ideally someone you know personally. It will cost more but look amazing and last many years.

Stop buying so much shit in general.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#14

Post by somewhatgoated »

shmeeed wrote: post #12

I hate to be the guy to say it, but this is just capitalism working as intended.

Not really - it’s __one form__ of capitalism working as intended but capitalism (like most -isms) can take many vastly different forms.

There can be a much better form of capitalism also in the US - since this whole thread and discussion is pretty US-centric.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#15

Post by post-it »

lamasery wrote: post #5

I think there's a lot of hidden inflation in this. Or, if not outright inflation, something similar to it. Look at what it costs to get a work shirt (I mean, for physical labor, "blue collar", heavy chambray or something along those lines) of comparable quality & materials to what was in a Sears catalog in the 1930s or ordered by the US military in the 1940s, which in neither case could be regarded as super-fancy . Y…

> Look at what it costs to get a work shirt (I mean, for physical labor, "blue collar", heavy chambray or something along those lines) of comparable quality & materials to what was in a Sears catalog in the 1930s or ordered by the US military in the 1940s, which in neither case could be regarded as super-fancy. You're probably looking at minimum $150.

Of course, this is still cheaper than it was in the 1940s. With my disposable income I could afford to buy a few $150 shirts a month. A worker of my social class in the 1940s could not.

I don't need the quality so I buy $5 Gildan shirts instead. I do buy Made in Canada cat toys for my little guy though. Different priorities.

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#16

Post by triceratops »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #11
lamasery wrote: post #5

I think there's a lot of hidden inflation in this. Or, if not outright inflation, something similar to it. Look at what it costs to get a work shirt (I mean, for physical labor, "blue collar", heavy chambray or something along those lines) of comparable quality & materials to what was in a Sears catalog in the 1930s or ordered by the US military in the 1940s, which in neither case could be regarded as super-fancy . Y…

I don't know what the right term is but yeah it's not quite inflation. IIRC households pre-ww2 were spending 15% of their budget on clothing, and the farther back you go the higher that gets even to the point where the concept of "budget" breaks down and the entire family's activities were oriented around procuring food and cloth. Good fabric has always been and is still very expensive! We have created much cheaper a…

> if you want the quality your predecessors had you better be prepared to look 15% of your household budget in the face

But why? That would imply productivity in the industry hasn't risen at all. Which isn't true.

Look at televisions, for example. 1% of what they cost in 1960 and 1000x better.

(Don't @ me with "smart TVs have ads now". You know what I really mean)

Re: Brands got worse on purpose

#17

Post by xandrius »

shmeeed wrote: post #12

I hate to be the guy to say it, but this is just capitalism working as intended.

It really isn't though. Capitalism doesn't have to be like this. This is a side effect of certain aspects of capitalism.

It's like saying lack of innovation is communism working as intended.

Post reply on HN