I think the undertone of the article is missed by a lot of people reading. A) The premise is that physical items which were produced because "machines" was the

I think the undertone of the article is missed by a lot of people reading. A) The premise is that physical items which were produced because "machines" was the "power of the future" still; didn't become replaced by "code aided machines" sometime in the late 1970's and early 1980's. B) This premise fell upon society's roles in life at the time! As mentioned in the article, likely most of the devices were made and used because often they'd be purchased "once" and "for life". Because - if you were cooking in a kitchen in 1940, 1890, 1840, etc... You weren't going to switch careers/positions in 3-5 years. This applied to many industries. Then pad on all the cultural norms; women in the home, men working on farms, factories, etc. To much greater degree than today. C) Comparably purchased products had much, MUCH more limited competition in yesteryear. Mass competition did not show up utnil the turn of the 20th century, thanks to the industrial revolution of the 19th. So, in summing it up I think the undertone of the article if reading 'between' the lines explicity implies that today's society has reached a point where the needs of what we purchase are identically matched to what is readily available for purchase, the norm ecomonimcally, and the completely and vastly different society we live in - has proven exactly what Victorian moods had suggested: useful or beautiful; all else has no value. And yet we find the most absurd value in things we likely need not to.