3 ms·
>One problem with this pretence of certainty is that cost-savings are more easily quantified than potential gains — so business and government are increasingly
by Digit-Al 6y ago
>One problem with this pretence of certainty is that cost-savings are more easily quantified than potential gains — so business and government are increasingly geared towards providing people with more, poorer things at an ever-lower price. Yet much evidence suggests that people like fewer, better things at a slightly higher price.
I would dispute that paragraph. The popularity of "Primani" is proof that there are plenty of people like to be able to buy a larger range of cheap stuff. The number of times I've heard female friends, on being complimented on a garment, say "and it was only a fiver", or "10 quid at Primark".
I would say there's plenty of both types in this world. Those who prefer quality over quantity, and those who don't.
- mrfredward 6y agoFashion isn't the best example for this, because often people are paying for prestige more than quality. A $3,000 purse isn't 100X as good as a $30 purse; the exclusivity of a brand that expensive is the attraction. People who opt-out of this competition however, may instead brag about what savvy shoppers they are. There is a relevant theory in economics called "the market for lemons" that speaks to what you are saying though. The idea is this: if someone is trying to buy a washing machine as cheaply as possible, they would rationally pick an $1000 machine that lasts 15 years over a $500 machine that lasts 5. The problem, however, is that the consumer often can't tell if the expensive machine is really better quality, or just going for a higher markup. With that uncertainty, it is safer to buy the cheap machine. Manufacturers know this, so they compete on price and features more than longevity. Without a time machine, consumers can't see if the extra money they spend is worth it, so cheap crap is the equilibrium for the market.