3 ms·
I agree 100%. I should have put "lower quality" in quotes because from an economic perspective it costs less. From an economic perspective, a "lower quality" al
by pratik661 6y ago
I agree 100%. I should have put "lower quality" in quotes because from an economic perspective it costs less. From an economic perspective, a "lower quality" alternative is one that costs less.
- simonh 6y agoArguably this might be a change in multi factor productivity?
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoThis is not true "from am economic perspective", though individual studies may use "cost" as a proxy for quality. No economist considers price the correct measure of quality, and a lot of economics deals with the often poor relationship between the two (and the factors subsidising the mismatch).