3 ms·

> “People have to choose between the right aesthetic, quality and price. If they want all three, good luck.” Why though? What am I supposed to do as a working

by ctoth 3y ago

> “People have to choose between the right aesthetic, quality and price. If they want all three, good luck.” Why though? What am I supposed to do as a working professional who wants nice things as my parents had when they made far less than me? Practically? It's just an overwhelming feeling that no matter how hard I work to keep up, even when I make it, the ground is pulled out from under me. Or I guess in this case, the couch.

dymk 3y ago
You sacrifice price, of course. "Fast, quality, cheap: pick two" has been an invariant in basically every industry since the beginning of... industry. And usually it's "pick one".
- ctoth 3y ago
  You are treating me as if I don't understand a fundamental aspect of engineering (rude) when I am pointing out that previously such optimizations were far less tradeoffs, as evidenced by the case of earlier couches which didn't have this problem. Obviously you will always have to make tradeoffs, it's the core of life. Previously these tradeoffs were not so harsh, and the penalty for spending a bit less was not a couch that broke in a year.
  - dymk 3y ago
    > Previously these tradeoffs were not so harsh What makes you so sure of this?
Night_Thastus 3y ago
I think the implication is that you get a balance of the first two, within your budget. Set a budget, look at your options. Realize that perfection is not possible and get the best option to fit your needs within your budget. If you do research and ask around, you might be able to maximize your value for what you pay.
- ctoth 3y ago
  Okay, but $3,000 for a couch sounds like a damn-reasonable budget, and apparently isn't? So can you tell me what my couch budget should be for a good couch that won't, in fact, break in three years? $3000 in 1995 dollars is approximately $6,000 today, so should I start looking at $6,000 couches? Except the problem here is when my parents bought a nice couch in 1995, it certainly wasn't $3,000 (closer to $1,200), and it lasted 10 years.
  - Night_Thastus 3y ago
    $3000 is absolutely a perfectly fine budget, and you can get a well-made couch within that. Some couches for that price will be cheaply made garbage. Some will be very well made. You have to look around, do research, look at customer feedback, see what reputation brands have, try a few, etc. I got a motion sofa for $2k 5 years ago, it's still going well. For a regular sofa you'd be fine with less. Just because poorly made and expensive furniture exists does not mean that all furniture is so.
thsksbd 3y ago
When we outsourced blue collar jobs, we also eliminated middle class products. There are no more quality middle class goods because there are no more blue collar jobs.
- andy99 3y ago
  We all also now have $1000 phones and all sorts of other electronic crap that we spend money on. I agree that "the middle" is gone and it's all low end garbage or luxury. But I'd like to see an analysis of where money goes now vs then. I think there's probably a lot more recurring payments (phone, streaming, etc) plus electronics compared to older generations.
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    Have you ever dreamt of your phone, something you hold onto and interact for goes at a time? You don't dream cell phones because (to your mind) they don't exist. They'rea boring box. Instead they are like the wardrobe to Narnia, a portal. Its what's through the glass that we're interested in. With that perspective I finally understand why people spend $1000 to get a faster, bigger phone. Their reality's lag, and how much of it they can see is tied to that update.
- phatskat 3y ago
  It’s more that the shareholders needed to be appeased, and CEOs realized they could save money by firing people and could make money by making things cheaply. You can hire less-skilled workers if you don’t intend (or care) that your product breaks, which saves money especially if you laid off your highly-skilled workers. There’s also no incentive to make a long-lasting product in a capitalist system, especially if your product does the thing it’s supposed to _really well_ and does it for a long time. Look at InstaPot - they sold like hot cakes…for a time. It worked great, did what it was supposed to, and lasted long enough that they couldn’t sustain their own successful business model. A car can last a decade and still run well, it just won’t have the bells and whistles of a newer model. Cookware by and large, and couches, don’t really get this kind of “refresh” outside of surface level details or features people largely shy away from like “Alexa-enabled” ovens. Out-sourcing comes into play because a company can pay even less for low-quality. I’m sure that if they could keep the jobs domestic and cheap, they would, but those pesky (/s) unions and minimum wages really stifled their innovation.
onetimeusename 3y ago
it is kind of strange. $3000 seems like a lot of money for a low quality couch. So I am being told that both prices of furniture went up and quality went down over time. How does that happen exactly? The article doesn't go into it and instead just quotes some executive saying he stands behind the quality blah blah blah... If I had to guess, I think the undue influence we give to MBAs leads to things like financialization of products. This means cost cutting and profit maximization. I think it's probably that combination that led to this. It wouldn't surprise me if the MBAs decided they could cut quality, outsource, and increase the price at the same time because it could be shown on a spreadsheet so obviously that dictates what should be done.

by ctoth 3y ago

dymk 3y ago

You sacrifice price, of course. "Fast, quality, cheap: pick two" has been an invariant in basically every industry since the beginning of... industry. And usually it's "pick one".

ctoth 3y ago
You are treating me as if I don't understand a fundamental aspect of engineering (rude) when I am pointing out that previously such optimizations were far less tradeoffs, as evidenced by the case of earlier couches which didn't have this problem. Obviously you will always have to make tradeoffs, it's the core of life. Previously these tradeoffs were not so harsh, and the penalty for spending a bit less was not a couch that broke in a year.
- dymk 3y ago
  > Previously these tradeoffs were not so harsh What makes you so sure of this?

Night_Thastus 3y ago

I think the implication is that you get a balance of the first two, within your budget. Set a budget, look at your options. Realize that perfection is not possible and get the best option to fit your needs within your budget. If you do research and ask around, you might be able to maximize your value for what you pay.

ctoth 3y ago
Okay, but $3,000 for a couch sounds like a damn-reasonable budget, and apparently isn't? So can you tell me what my couch budget should be for a good couch that won't, in fact, break in three years? $3000 in 1995 dollars is approximately $6,000 today, so should I start looking at $6,000 couches? Except the problem here is when my parents bought a nice couch in 1995, it certainly wasn't $3,000 (closer to $1,200), and it lasted 10 years.
- Night_Thastus 3y ago
  $3000 is absolutely a perfectly fine budget, and you can get a well-made couch within that. Some couches for that price will be cheaply made garbage. Some will be very well made. You have to look around, do research, look at customer feedback, see what reputation brands have, try a few, etc. I got a motion sofa for $2k 5 years ago, it's still going well. For a regular sofa you'd be fine with less. Just because poorly made and expensive furniture exists does not mean that all furniture is so.

thsksbd 3y ago

When we outsourced blue collar jobs, we also eliminated middle class products. There are no more quality middle class goods because there are no more blue collar jobs.

andy99 3y ago
We all also now have $1000 phones and all sorts of other electronic crap that we spend money on. I agree that "the middle" is gone and it's all low end garbage or luxury. But I'd like to see an analysis of where money goes now vs then. I think there's probably a lot more recurring payments (phone, streaming, etc) plus electronics compared to older generations.
- thsksbd 3y ago
  Have you ever dreamt of your phone, something you hold onto and interact for goes at a time? You don't dream cell phones because (to your mind) they don't exist. They'rea boring box. Instead they are like the wardrobe to Narnia, a portal. Its what's through the glass that we're interested in. With that perspective I finally understand why people spend $1000 to get a faster, bigger phone. Their reality's lag, and how much of it they can see is tied to that update.
phatskat 3y ago
It’s more that the shareholders needed to be appeased, and CEOs realized they could save money by firing people and could make money by making things cheaply. You can hire less-skilled workers if you don’t intend (or care) that your product breaks, which saves money especially if you laid off your highly-skilled workers. There’s also no incentive to make a long-lasting product in a capitalist system, especially if your product does the thing it’s supposed to _really well_ and does it for a long time. Look at InstaPot - they sold like hot cakes…for a time. It worked great, did what it was supposed to, and lasted long enough that they couldn’t sustain their own successful business model. A car can last a decade and still run well, it just won’t have the bells and whistles of a newer model. Cookware by and large, and couches, don’t really get this kind of “refresh” outside of surface level details or features people largely shy away from like “Alexa-enabled” ovens. Out-sourcing comes into play because a company can pay even less for low-quality. I’m sure that if they could keep the jobs domestic and cheap, they would, but those pesky (/s) unions and minimum wages really stifled their innovation.

onetimeusename 3y ago

it is kind of strange. $3000 seems like a lot of money for a low quality couch. So I am being told that both prices of furniture went up and quality went down over time. How does that happen exactly? The article doesn't go into it and instead just quotes some executive saying he stands behind the quality blah blah blah... If I had to guess, I think the undue influence we give to MBAs leads to things like financialization of products. This means cost cutting and profit maximization. I think it's probably that combination that led to this. It wouldn't surprise me if the MBAs decided they could cut quality, outsource, and increase the price at the same time because it could be shown on a spreadsheet so obviously that dictates what should be done.