2 ms·
Just because something is higher quality does not mean it has higher subjective value. E.g. i still think i come out ahead with cheap clothes and a laptop then
by bawolff 3y ago
Just because something is higher quality does not mean it has higher subjective value. E.g. i still think i come out ahead with cheap clothes and a laptop then someone 100 years ago with higher quality clothes.
- coffeebeqn 3y agoI’d rather have a house than shitty fast fashion but your mileage may vary
- edmundsauto 3y agoA better comparison would be this: would you rather have 3 suits that you wore everyday that cost a months wages, or 30 shirts and pants that cost a weeks wages but are lower quality. (Also, IMO, houses today are much higher quality than in the past as soon as you account for safety)
- ornornor 3y agoThe answer differs whether you answer it selfishly or with the greater good in mind (resource use/waste, pollution, etc)
- eru 3y agoIf you can find a neighbourhood that's as dangerous and unsafe as those a hundred years ago, the house would be very cheap compared to GDP per capita.
- astrange 3y agoProbably don't want a common house from 1924 with lead paint, an indoor wooden stove for heating and an outhouse.
- jhbadger 3y agoAlso average houses from that time period were tiny, with about ~1000 sq ft of livable space. That people were expected to raise families in. My apartment (which is just for me and my cat) is bigger than that! https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]