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

Backpacks got worse on purpose

worseonpurpose.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 396 posts

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#311

Post by WillPostForFood »

BobbyJo wrote: post #212
nearbuy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true for median purchasing power. You're looking at the federal minimum wage, not the median. Only about 1% of hourly workers earn $7.25 or less. Median earnings were $48,070 in 1975, measured in 2024 dollars, and $51,370 in 2024.

Median earnings in 1970 were closer to 56k in today's dollars. 1970-1980 was a recessionary period, followed by stagflation in the 80s. I hate when people use that time period as an anchor to show growth. It's like using 2009 as an anchor.

What data are you using? It is hard to get solid numbers pre 1975. I looked at SSA Wage index which has 1970 at $6,186. Adjust using PCE, that is only $42,808 in present dollars.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#312

Post by infecto »

panarchy wrote: post #129
infecto wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or more likely consumers vote with their dollar and cost matters over quality. PE is just a bad scape goat, there are obvious outliers but largely companies make products that consumers want.

Or more likely consumers aren't paid enough to buy quality.

How do you come to that conclusion? It is certainly a luxury that not everyone can afford but for the average consumer in America it’s possible but folks still opt out.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#313

Post by a2dam »

vdqtp3 wrote: post #173
drBonkers wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They also found that, if inflation adjusted, you get could, in most categories, the same or better quality for the same price. I argue you must evaluate against median purchasing power; it accounts for inflation and (lack of) wage increases. Comments from your linked video: > The problem with the “adjusted for inflation” argument is that it does not factor in buying power. The increase in wages has risen at out hal…

I'm really frustrated by inflation numbers because there doesn't seem to be a metric that makes sense. CPI ignores the reality people feel (and swaps in cheaper items that aren't necessarily on par with the original to keep the number lower), gold isn't really a 1:1 with purchasing power...there must be some sort of useful composite metric that merges multiple data points over time like rental/house prices, CPI marke…

I'd argue that "the reality people feel" isn't a good aspect of any metric other than one that measure sentiment itself.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#314

Post by peacebeard »

MostlyStable wrote: post #55

While I personally find this kind of thing extremely annoying, to me, the main problem is the _difficulty_ of determining quality. The Donut media guys did a (relatively unscientific) video comparing a whole bunch of products from the 50s to modern day across several price points. What they found was that the things that "looked" the same now were simultaneously worse and also much cheaper. They also found that, if i…

Yeah feels like the only way to find a quality product now is to find a good niche reviewer on YouTube and watch 5 hours of content.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#315

Post by genewitch »

rozab wrote: post #282
fwipsy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I missed this but now that you point it out, seems plausible. Pretty ironic on an article about quality products being replaced by cheaper ones.

Dead horse but I find it astonishing that people can still miss AI writing like this. Don't you find it incredibly grating that every paragraph grinds to a halt while 3 sentence fragments are repeated? Same rhetorical devices. Same tone. Same pointless constructions. That's not good writing. It's cheap parlour tricks. The rhythm continues almost as though the writing is in verse—with the effect of hypnotizing the rea…

this comment reeks of AI too, and the fact i can't tell if you're being tongue in cheek means i'm cooked

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#316

Post by giraffe_lady »

cratermoon wrote: post #286
palmotea wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main issue is that _determining_ which products actually are quality has also gotten harder in many cases. And there's a perverse effect to that difficulty: even if you really want high quality, it can be so hard to be sure you're getting it that you give up and just by the cheapest thing, because at least then you know you're not getting taken advantage of (by buying crappy for premium prices).

My rule is to never buy the cheapest thing, because to a point, you get what you pay for. But my other rule is not to spend extra for brand recognition or supposed higher quality. There's a middle range where you get reasonable value, better-than-crap stuff. Too low and you're buying junk, too high and you're overpaying, perhaps for brand or reputation, for something you can get elsewhere for less.

This has been the wisdom for a long time but in some areas, clothing especially, it has finally fallen apart.

Currently with clothes the cheapest are arguably good value, you get shit but at cheap prices. And high end you at least get good materials: it may not be "worth it" but if you want high quality fabric, which is extremely real, this is what you're paying. The midrange is the worst of both, quality barely if at all higher than the bottom level, but prices significantly higher.

This is too complicated to approach by looking at brands too. Accounting for diffusion lines, subbranding, white labeling etc there are almost no companies that make only bad or only good quality, and the quality is not very well correlated to price or brand prestige either.

For clothing there are currently very few general value signals that are still working, a huge contrast to 10 but even 5 years ago.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#317

Post by dfxm12 »

eudamoniac wrote: post #100
MostlyStable wrote: post #55

While I personally find this kind of thing extremely annoying, to me, the main problem is the _difficulty_ of determining quality. The Donut media guys did a (relatively unscientific) video comparing a whole bunch of products from the 50s to modern day across several price points. What they found was that the things that "looked" the same now were simultaneously worse and also much cheaper. They also found that, if i…

> They also found that, if inflation adjusted, you get could, in most categories, the same or better quality for the same price This is what so many don't understand, especially among the youth / reddit crowd. They expect their $25 jeans to be equivalent quality to the $25 or even $100 jeans from 60 years ago, for some reason. There seems to be some implicit feeling that everything ought to be getting better and chea…

There seems to be some implicit feeling that everything ought to be getting better and cheaper than it used to be.

It's less an implicit feeling, and more explicitly what's being marketed to us. Think about AI. It's being marketed that it will make everything better and cheaper. Computers before that. Machines before that. All kinds of things in between.

I don't doubt this is possible, especially if these technologies are properly democratized, but greed gets in the way, of course. No one wants to sell you just one fridge at a respectable mark up. These tools don't really go into making a better fridge, per se, but finding what you're willing to and how frequently you're willing to replace it and design planned obsolescence around that. They add subscription features. They want you to log into your fridge to track and sell your behavior, etc.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#318

Post by busterarm »

kstrauser wrote: post #80
busterarm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, I've had my GR1 since 2013 and it's still flawless. It replaced my bike messenger bags (Chrome, Mission Workshop). It's been through sand, mud, dust and just shakes the abuse off like nothing. I do wish half the time though that I'd bought a 40L GR2 though.

Yep. I like that the care instructions are literally to hose it off in the back yard and let it dry. This thing will outlive me. But I main got it because I’m a relatively large guy with broad shoulders and other bags pinched my neck. I was given a Timbuk2 pack from work that I otherwise liked, but the straps were too close together. I could either wear it high on my back and have them mash my neck all day, or low on…

I've gone on one or two trips every year where the GR1 wasn't big enough and I needed a separate small bag.

But granted, I wouldn't want to be hauling that around every day either, it's just more convenient for the overall pack.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#319

Post by queenkjuul »

cratermoon wrote: post #286
palmotea wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main issue is that _determining_ which products actually are quality has also gotten harder in many cases. And there's a perverse effect to that difficulty: even if you really want high quality, it can be so hard to be sure you're getting it that you give up and just by the cheapest thing, because at least then you know you're not getting taken advantage of (by buying crappy for premium prices).

My rule is to never buy the cheapest thing, because to a point, you get what you pay for. But my other rule is not to spend extra for brand recognition or supposed higher quality. There's a middle range where you get reasonable value, better-than-crap stuff. Too low and you're buying junk, too high and you're overpaying, perhaps for brand or reputation, for something you can get elsewhere for less.

Agree with the sibling reply--clothing in particular this paradigm is dead, but it's dying out in general, too. I'm frequently finding myself with mid-range products of barely better quality than the bargain basement.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#320

Post by queenkjuul »

ctoth wrote: post #199
kqr wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A product gets good reviews in Consumer Reports or the Wire Cutter or reddit, and the company making it knows they're gonna sell a ton of them, so they start cutting corners I think this is true, but for far less malicious reasons. Favourable reviews lead to popularity, which increases production pressures, which makes it harder to source quality materials and maintain a quality process while satisfying demand. I h…

Maybe they should just cap the number of orders at the number of items they can make and ask anybody else to sign up on a list? Anybody who chooses option 1 is obviously evil?

100% this. If you can't deliver the product i want, then fine. Don't lie to me and deliver a product inferior to what i ordered for the same price without warning. That's straight up malice.

Naturally the kind of thing that would be defended on HN nonetheless

Post reply on HN