This site is absolute catnip for HN. Do we know what motivates the site? Long-term SEO content authority reputation building before pivoting to affiliate links?
Worse on Purpose
31–40 of 88 posts
Re: Worse on Purpose
#32Man, I clicked on "American Giant", which the website says is known for "Quality US-made staples at mainstream prices".
Then I see how much a zip-up hoodie costs: $168.
I guess I'm not in the mainstream anymore, yikes.
Re: Worse on Purpose
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
The site lists "Approved" companies that have not been enshittified by private equity. What springs to mind for me are scissor manufacturers Ernest Wright and Whiteley. They maintained quality, relied on expert workers and aim to keep high quality staff for their career and hire people to learn manual skills. The result of this is high prices and waitlists for many of their products, which is the exact opposite of wh…
Why would private equity not want high prices and a wait list? That's guaranteed future sales at high margin. Sounds pretty good to me...
That’s the downside of requiring infinite (in the sense of “never-ending”) growth, and not being content “just” with profit.
Re: Worse on Purpose
#34In a K shaped economy, there is no success in making quality goods at reasonable prices. There’s no middle class to buy them. You can make luxury goods for wealthy customers who do not care about price, or you can make absolute garbage to sell to the masses in bulk. If you want to bring back quality goods and services, end wealth inequality. Tax the rich.
FWIW, I was with you until the "Tax the rich" bit. Considering how many people the average "rich" person employs, they are generating plenty of tax revenue.
So you are saying - make the poor pay taxes for the rich?
Re: Worse on Purpose
#35In a K shaped economy, there is no success in making quality goods at reasonable prices. There’s no middle class to buy them. You can make luxury goods for wealthy customers who do not care about price, or you can make absolute garbage to sell to the masses in bulk. If you want to bring back quality goods and services, end wealth inequality. Tax the rich.
FWIW, I was with you until the "Tax the rich" bit. Considering how many people the average "rich" person employs, they are generating plenty of tax revenue.
I think "Tax the rich" is the wrong slogan. What we need is to incentivize sharing the progress we are making in terms of productivity widely instead of all the benefits going to a few. For example some people are talking about giving company shares to all workers. This would align the incentives for all workers in the company to do better and then benefiting instead of just the top few percent.
I wonder if this could be achieved by changing the tax code.
Re: Worse on Purpose
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would private equity not want high prices and a wait list? That's guaranteed future sales at high margin. Sounds pretty good to me...
That’s the downside of requiring infinite (in the sense of “never-ending”) growth, and not being content “just” with profit.
I'm moderately sure that there's a part of private equity that would be content with a steady profit (at the right price). It's just not the part that you usually hear about.
Re: Worse on Purpose
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I was with you until the "Tax the rich" bit. Considering how many people the average "rich" person employs, they are generating plenty of tax revenue.
So you are saying - make the poor pay taxes for the rich?
Not quite sure how you got that out of my comment, but no.
In the US at least, those classified as poor have a very low tax burden, in many cases they pay $0, or close to $0 in federal taxes after standard deductions.
Re: Worse on Purpose
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I was with you until the "Tax the rich" bit. Considering how many people the average "rich" person employs, they are generating plenty of tax revenue.
Geez, the rich already take credit for the things their employees do...and now you want to give them credit for the taxes their employees paid too! Wild!
It's kind of weird. There is a lot of propaganda that says
* rich people spending money==great investment into the economy and we need to give them more so they make the economy even better
* poor people spending money==mindless consumption, it's a bad idea to give them money because they are wasting it anyways
Re: Worse on Purpose
#39It doesn't really take into account that not all products are meant to be premium. Like it says to avoid Black & Decker because it's "Built to a price point, not a quality standard". Like we know, it's not the 1980s - sometimes you just need a cheap drill to mount a TV and then forget about until you move.
I wouldn't need the site for these situations, just buy what looks good at Lowe's or Target and don't worry if the brand is worse than the 1980s.
Wonder how much money "Worse on Purpose" has been offered so far.
Re: Worse on Purpose
#40It doesn't really take into account that not all products are meant to be premium. Like it says to avoid Black & Decker because it's "Built to a price point, not a quality standard". Like we know, it's not the 1980s - sometimes you just need a cheap drill to mount a TV and then forget about until you move.
... and this kind of site gives you the ability to do some more research ...
Myself, I am of the "buy the cheapest tool" first and see if I use it... If I use it and it works, great - if it breaks or wears out - or I use it regularly and it is "sub-par", then I will replace with something I do more research on.
Except - the breakdown of that argument, is sometimes the cheap tool wastes your time and it's "poor quality" actually prevents you from developing the skill and experience of performing that task correctly.