3 ms·

Could be wrong, but I feel that you interpreted my statement about 'free enterprise' as an opening salvo in a political discussion, which isn't exactly where I

Could be wrong, but I feel that you interpreted my statement about 'free enterprise' as an opening salvo in a political discussion, which isn't exactly where I was trying to go. That said, to elaborate on what exactly I'm dissapointed with, I'd say: 1) today's mass produced furniture is of significant lower quality than that of generations past. Why is it that so many industries improve over time, yet the offerings for furniture have gotten so much worse? 2) the manufacturer's exploitation of asymetric information. When they know how crappy the product is, and the consumer doesn't, the manufacturer wins the transaction every time. Too many times I've felt like a sucker only a few months after purchase. Spending more money doesn't mean you get a better product, it often means I'm a bigger sucker. 3) The lack of diversity in available options. You have either low-quality department store options, or you have a super expensive individual craftsman, with nothing in-between. 4) the lack of accountability for companies that peddle crap. Example: Ikea's quality has been the butt of jokes for a long time, but consumers keep going back. This isn't the way I expected the free market to operate. And yes, I have considered the opportunity cost of doing it myself. I realize I'm probably weird in that I chose this, and it wasn't an easy, nor cheap choice, but I'd rather do it than give the department stores another dollar of my business. I'm dissapointed that if someone else was in the same situation as me, I wouldn't have an easy answer for them.

gridlockd 7y ago
> 1) today's mass produced furniture is of significant lower quality than that of generations past. Why is it that so many industries improve over time, yet the offerings for furniture have gotten so much worse? Let's accept this premise as true, if a company can cut corners and consumers keep paying the same price regardless, quality is allowed to suffer. Competition stops working when consumers can't tell the difference or don't bother shopping around. > 2) the manufacturer's exploitation of asymetric information. When they know how crappy the product is, and the consumer doesn't, the manufacturer wins the transaction every time. Too many times I've felt like a sucker only a few months after purchase. Spending more money doesn't mean you get a better product, it often means I'm a bigger sucker. Well, you do know better now, right? The asymmetry isn't set in stone. You can spend more time on research, educate your fellow peers, etc. Start a YouTube channel that becomes the top result when people look for furniture. Perhaps people just don't care enough though, then that information asymmetry is actually part of fair pricing. There are other areas, cars for example, where there's a wealth of such information both sought after and provided. > 3) The lack of diversity in available options. You have either low-quality department store options, or you have a super expensive individual craftsman, with nothing in-between. Again, this reflects the purchasing habits of actual consumers. People don't care about furniture enough to pay a good price for quality work, therefore producers have to adapt to either ends. > 4) the lack of accountability for companies that peddle crap. Example: Ikea's quality has been the butt of jokes for a long time, but consumers keep going back. This isn't the way I expected the free market to operate. I guess your expectations were wrong then. There are many reasons for IKEA's success, the furniture quality (perhaps ironically) happens not to be one of them. > I realize I'm probably weird in that I chose this, and it wasn't an easy, nor cheap choice, but I'd rather do it than give the department stores another dollar of my business Don't get me wrong, I totally respect your choice and "do it yourself" attitude. You may have gotten more out of it than you paid. If it's really just about the furniture though, paying a craftsman to do the work may just be cheaper. > I'm dissapointed that if someone else was in the same situation as me, I wouldn't have an easy answer for them. The "easy answer" is to pay the craftsman, but people don't want to hear it because they can't (or just don't want to) pay for them.

gridlockd 7y ago

> 1) today's mass produced furniture is of significant lower quality than that of generations past. Why is it that so many industries improve over time, yet the offerings for furniture have gotten so much worse? Let's accept this premise as true, if a company can cut corners and consumers keep paying the same price regardless, quality is allowed to suffer. Competition stops working when consumers can't tell the difference or don't bother shopping around. > 2) the manufacturer's exploitation of asymetric information. When they know how crappy the product is, and the consumer doesn't, the manufacturer wins the transaction every time. Too many times I've felt like a sucker only a few months after purchase. Spending more money doesn't mean you get a better product, it often means I'm a bigger sucker. Well, you do know better now, right? The asymmetry isn't set in stone. You can spend more time on research, educate your fellow peers, etc. Start a YouTube channel that becomes the top result when people look for furniture. Perhaps people just don't care enough though, then that information asymmetry is actually part of fair pricing. There are other areas, cars for example, where there's a wealth of such information both sought after and provided. > 3) The lack of diversity in available options. You have either low-quality department store options, or you have a super expensive individual craftsman, with nothing in-between. Again, this reflects the purchasing habits of actual consumers. People don't care about furniture enough to pay a good price for quality work, therefore producers have to adapt to either ends. > 4) the lack of accountability for companies that peddle crap. Example: Ikea's quality has been the butt of jokes for a long time, but consumers keep going back. This isn't the way I expected the free market to operate. I guess your expectations were wrong then. There are many reasons for IKEA's success, the furniture quality (perhaps ironically) happens not to be one of them. > I realize I'm probably weird in that I chose this, and it wasn't an easy, nor cheap choice, but I'd rather do it than give the department stores another dollar of my business Don't get me wrong, I totally respect your choice and "do it yourself" attitude. You may have gotten more out of it than you paid. If it's really just about the furniture though, paying a craftsman to do the work may just be cheaper. > I'm dissapointed that if someone else was in the same situation as me, I wouldn't have an easy answer for them. The "easy answer" is to pay the craftsman, but people don't want to hear it because they can't (or just don't want to) pay for them.