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

Worse on Purpose

ledger.worseonpurpose.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Worse on Purpose

#41

Post by everdrive »

lastofthemojito wrote: post #32

Man, 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.

People didn't used to own so many clothes. Respective to income, clothing used to cost a lot more. As prices fell off a cliff, people's closets started overflowing.

It's been a long time since we've had a sense for how expensive clothing used to cost, and a "good" pair of boots (just as example) would be an enormous sticker shock to most people.

This might be more tolerable if you only owned a single hoodie (why would you need more than one?) and crucially if it lasted for many years.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#42

Post by jeromechoo »

lastofthemojito wrote: post #32

Man, 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.

Might’ve been one of the earlier entries. When I first purchased a zip up hoodie from American Giant 10ish years ago they were around $65.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#43

Post by paulddraper »

jackb4040 wrote: post #26

It 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.

Tools are (can be) cheap.

An electric drill from Harbor Freight costs as much as breakfast from Dennys.

You going to pass it on to your kids? No. But maybe you don’t need to.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#44

Post by thesuitonym »

brk wrote: post #19
Apreche wrote: post #12

In 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.

It'll trickle down this time for sure.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#45

Post by smallmancontrov »

thesuitonym wrote: post #44
brk wrote: post #19

Earlier 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.

It'll trickle down this time for sure.

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a leather boot? I'm thinking brk here might just be able to tell us the answer!

Re: Worse on Purpose

#47

Post by ffsm8 »

everdrive wrote: post #41
lastofthemojito wrote: post #32

Man, 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.

People didn't used to own so many clothes. Respective to income, clothing used to cost a lot more. As prices fell off a cliff, people's closets started overflowing. It's been a long time since we've had a sense for how expensive clothing used to cost, and a "good" pair of boots (just as example) would be an enormous sticker shock to most people. This might be more tolerable if you only owned a single hoodie (why woul…

> It's been a long time since we've had a sense for how expensive clothing used to cost, and a "good" pair of boots (just as example) would be an enormous sticker shock to most people.

Esp that example it's kinda triggering me a little, because someone I know can't shut up about it.

From my perspective, what they consider "a good pair of shoes" is what I'd consider a "durable pair of shoes", which is - to them - criteria which makes them good

While that's an acceptable view, it's subjective - not objective. And I wouldn't trade my running shoes for them, even if I have to buy them new every 2-3 years... And consider the running shoes better, because they do provide a more comfortable wearing experience - at the cost of longevity.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#48

Post by thesuitonym »

jghn wrote: post #15
altacc wrote: post #7

Earlier 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…

It's difficult to keep track over time, however. Brands will build up a reputation as being the one that's actually good for a particular product, and then for one reason or another reduce in quality while relying on their brand history. And it can take a long time for that word of mouth reputation to die off. The effect is bolstered by people who own older generations of the product citing longevity. An example that…

> An example that comes to mind is Speed Queen for laundry machines.

I should have figured when I noticed my local appliance store starting selling them. That was my plan for when the Samsung garbage that came with my house breaks. What's the quality machine now?

Re: Worse on Purpose

#49

Post by smallmancontrov »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #35
brk wrote: post #19

Earlier 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.

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 coul…

The moment tax policy goes into a wonky side alley it can be bought and paid for. Frontal assault is the only strategy that can possibly work for this one.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#50

Post by malfist »

fwip wrote: post #5

As far as I can tell, this is a site for an LLM to vomit out the same basic article with different specific products each time.

Also, a lot of it makes no sense. Bonobos is listed as "Avoid" because it was bought out, not because the product was made worse in any way. Some entries have reasoning about avoiding because the product was made worse, but most are just "company was sold" or "owned by a conglomerate"

That isn't reason enough for me to avoid, maybe to watch for things, but not avoid. Wake me when a product is worse on purpose, like the title claims.

And it's just ai slopped text too. This is the reason ThermoWorks is "Approved"

> Independent and honest; manufacturing is English rather than American, which matters for framing but not for stewardship

What does that even mean? That says absolutely nothing.

Same with the reason lodge is approved:

> Family-owned, US-made, priced honestly. The anchor of the entire counter-list.

Says nothing besides the AI wrote everything, and likely claude.

Post reply on HN