5 ms·

How do you know they were better made back then? This is a place where you have to be extremely aware of survivor bias. You also have to be very careful about

How do you know they were better made back then? This is a place where you have to be extremely aware of survivor bias. You also have to be very careful about inflation adjusted dollars vs actual wealth values. For instance the median income in the US in 1933 was between $500 and $1000. Inflation adjusted that’s between 15 and 30k but our median income now is much higher than that. Anecdotally my grandmother felt she was wealthy compared to her peers in the 1930s because her family could buy a dress per person per year from the Sears catalog.

alabastervlog 2y ago
We have both real examples of specific common models, and depictions (photos, sales art) of same, and not just ones regarded as “high end” (which, we’re talking outdoor workwear in an age when that wasn’t remotely fashionable like it would be after the 1950s, so there weren’t really fancy versions of these) and the fabric is better, and the construction more involved and durable, than that in an $50+ chambray shirt today. For a (supposedly) inflation-adjusted $18. Most of the examples I’ve found that approach the originals in quality are $200 or more. I want to know if anyone tracks one down for less than $150, because I’d likely own 2-3 of them before the year’s out if they do. 8x the supposedly inflation-adjusted price of the original would be, from what I can tell, a bargain. Your note that a dress per year felt like a lot is exactly my point: if I had to pay $150 per blue-collar work shirt I’d feel like I was doing pretty great if I could responsibly buy a couple per year. IOW, buying similar quality goods, our alleged improvements in QOL are significantly diminished. [edit] if you look into what decently-constructed (not even finely-made! Just, like, not shit) dresses made with fabrics that aren’t mostly or entirely plastic cost, they’re hundreds of dollars today, even for fairly simple ones, especially midi-length or longer (as there’s more fabric than in a mini)
- cratermoon 2y ago
  > a dress per year Also keep in mind that the quality and durability of that dress, and similarly-priced clothing of the era, made it possible to not need to buy new every season. That dress could be expected to last for years, longer with simple repairs. Also, shoes are even worse than clothing for declining price/decreasing quality.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    You’re not kidding, I can’t friggin’ believe how bad $70 sneakers can be these days. My shitty wal mart kids’ shoes for $10 or whatever in the ‘90s held up way better than a lot of these. Oddly, the low end getting worse while prices also go up has made $200+ good leather shoes more attractive, LOL. Though I expect we’re about to either see most of those companies go out of business, or hike prices $100 or so in a short period of time, given post-2021 labor price increases. They’ve got to be hurting for margin right now.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      I have two pairs of sneakers I wear for a lot of things. They get at least weekly use. Both are >4 years old. One was a pair of Sketchers I got for $40, the other was some pair that didn't even have a box I got for $9 at Walmart.
      - cratermoon 2y ago
        You don't say how long you wear them, how much you're on your feet wearing them, or how far you move wearing them. Shoes don't wear out (much) from being put on and taken off, and weekly use is light use. On the flip side, four years is nothing. I have shoes I bought over thirty years ago, and all I've ever done is replace the insoles. Even the laces are original.
        vel0city 2y ago
        Trips to the office and general errands, work around the house and yard, walks through the park and neighborhood, playing with the kids at the playground, some light bike riding along with sometimes bike riding as a commute. Normal everyday wear stuff for an office drone. At least weekly, because I switch off between the two shoes (one's more grey and the other is black) and some flip flops depending on the weather for my general everyday wear. Some days I'll wear nicer shoes, some days I'll wear one of my pairs of boots, so its not really an every day thing to wear those shoes but each probably gets at least 2 days a week on average of all day wear. I'd say over four years of this a few days a week on a $9 pair of sneakers is pretty decent. They'll likely hit at least six or seven before replacement. And yeah, I have some nice dress shoes that I've had for twenty years that pretty much look like the day I bought them. They get worn like 2-3 times a year. I also have leather cowboy boots I bought over 15 years ago that had their heels replaced a couple of years ago and are otherwise still in great shape. Both were more than $9 though. I think the boots were like $110 back when I bought them at Cavender's. The comment I was replying to: > I can’t friggin’ believe how bad $70 sneakers can be these days Even in the 90s my sneakers usually fell apart within a few years, and I rarely even owned $70 sneakers back then even adjusted for inflation. These days I can get sneakers for about $15 that last just about as long as the sneakers I owned in the 90s. That's the equivalent of buying ~$6 shoes in 1990 by many inflation calculators. These are my cheap sneakers, a little bit different but the same brand and general style: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Athletic-Works-Men-s-Banded-Jogger-Slip-on-Athletic-Sneakers-Wide-Width-Available/1397321939 https://www.walmart.com/ip/Athletic-Works-Men-s-Banded-Jogge...
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  Here is an American made work shirt for $70 https://www.allamericanclothing.com/collections/mens-long-sleeve-shirts/products/heavyweight-khaki-work-shirt-made-in-usa-b455 https://www.allamericanclothing.com/collections/mens-long-sl... it's in khaki not blue and the cloth is twill vs chambray but thats because twill is a better fabric for the use case. And as a reminder blue collar work was _an improvement_ over the default which was agricultural work. Most workers in the US could not afford to buy clothing from a catalog in the 1930s. The dress comparison was as opposed to her peer group who wore clothes made out of seed bags.
- pwndByDeath 2y ago
  Perhaps the true inflation tracks the price of equivalent shirts
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    If you're saying there are equivalent shirts today that are as good but just in different styles and materials, I don't think there are, not at the inflation-adjusted ~$18. $50, and maybe you're getting somewhere. Maybe. I do get that the specific type I called out might have some functional equivalent that's simply a different style & material but is just as good, but not that cheap, they don't. Under $150, probably, sure. Under $50? No. This suggests that the cost of clothing has inflated at more like 3x the nominal inflation rate, despite the existence of $18 (or cheaper!) shirts—the inflation was eaten up by worsening quality, rather than showing up in prices, but like for like, even with a generous "functional equivalent" accounting, the change was more like $0.79 -> $50+ than $0.79 -> ~$18—your "equivalent" dollar under the latter calculation in-fact buys less.
    - pwndByDeath 2y ago
      I'm curious what other things when compared for quality would have a higher than 'normal' inflation. Perhaps we've been suffering a higher inflation across many 'dimensions'. If CPI doesn't control for enshitification, we technically have more inflation than we believe
    - kasey_junk 2y ago
      You are talking about the hedonic adjustments which is a hugely studied part of inflation calculations. For any way to calculate broad inflation you’ll find products that inflated more than the calculation (and less). Your own example is an interesting one because a) it’s very hard to compare clothing by objective quality b) you’re changing the goal posts. I’ve found a carhart product that nearly exactly matches your specification and msrp’s for $40. I’ve seen discounters selling it for $25. Which is getting very close to your specific target.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
palmotea 2y ago
>> I’ve long suspected a lot of supposed economic progress since, especially, the 1970s, has just been goods getting worse. > Go look at what it costs to get a chambray work shirt (where we got the term “blue collar”, so, made for physical labor, not something fancy) made with similar-quality fabric and construction to a common 1940s or 1950s offering in a Sears catalog. > How do you know they were better made back then? I think it's pretty clear based on what I've read about purchasing behavior back then: people would own a relatively small quantity of clothes (compared to today), which they'd wear for a long time. That just wouldn't be a tenable strategy given modern quality. Also, historically, stuff in the Sears catalog wasn't super special high-end stuff. It was common mass market stuff.
- lesostep 2y ago
  > would own a relatively small quantity of clothes (compared to today), which they'd wear for a long time. That just wouldn't be a tenable strategy given modern quality. one problem though. My clothing would also last noticeably longer if I was hand-washing it. How much longer I don't actually know, but some of the dresses that was passed to me from older generations have never seen the inside of a washing machine. I also can find similar fabric in some stores, so, theoretically, some clothes today would also live for decades. We have to adjust to washing machines and our washing habits. Some people I know wash their jeans every week. Every. Week. On a high speed. Yeah no shit they would fall apart in a year, that's like 20-30 washings in a year if they had 2 pairs.
  - palmotea 2y ago
    >> would own a relatively small quantity of clothes (compared to today), which they'd wear for a long time. That just wouldn't be a tenable strategy given modern quality. > one problem though. My clothing would also last noticeably longer if I was hand-washing it. While modern clothing might last longer if hand washed, the question is how long. Up-thread it was noted an old $18 (adjusted for inflation) work shirt has the quality features of a $200+ shirt today. I'm under the impression that no amount of babying would allow many modern clothing items to last a long as people used to wear their clothes.

alabastervlog 2y ago

We have both real examples of specific common models, and depictions (photos, sales art) of same, and not just ones regarded as “high end” (which, we’re talking outdoor workwear in an age when that wasn’t remotely fashionable like it would be after the 1950s, so there weren’t really fancy versions of these) and the fabric is better, and the construction more involved and durable, than that in an $50+ chambray shirt today. For a (supposedly) inflation-adjusted $18. Most of the examples I’ve found that approach the originals in quality are $200 or more. I want to know if anyone tracks one down for less than $150, because I’d likely own 2-3 of them before the year’s out if they do. 8x the supposedly inflation-adjusted price of the original would be, from what I can tell, a bargain. Your note that a dress per year felt like a lot is exactly my point: if I had to pay $150 per blue-collar work shirt I’d feel like I was doing pretty great if I could responsibly buy a couple per year. IOW, buying similar quality goods, our alleged improvements in QOL are significantly diminished. [edit] if you look into what decently-constructed (not even finely-made! Just, like, not shit) dresses made with fabrics that aren’t mostly or entirely plastic cost, they’re hundreds of dollars today, even for fairly simple ones, especially midi-length or longer (as there’s more fabric than in a mini)

cratermoon 2y ago
> a dress per year Also keep in mind that the quality and durability of that dress, and similarly-priced clothing of the era, made it possible to not need to buy new every season. That dress could be expected to last for years, longer with simple repairs. Also, shoes are even worse than clothing for declining price/decreasing quality.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  You’re not kidding, I can’t friggin’ believe how bad $70 sneakers can be these days. My shitty wal mart kids’ shoes for $10 or whatever in the ‘90s held up way better than a lot of these. Oddly, the low end getting worse while prices also go up has made $200+ good leather shoes more attractive, LOL. Though I expect we’re about to either see most of those companies go out of business, or hike prices $100 or so in a short period of time, given post-2021 labor price increases. They’ve got to be hurting for margin right now.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    I have two pairs of sneakers I wear for a lot of things. They get at least weekly use. Both are >4 years old. One was a pair of Sketchers I got for $40, the other was some pair that didn't even have a box I got for $9 at Walmart.
    - cratermoon 2y ago
      You don't say how long you wear them, how much you're on your feet wearing them, or how far you move wearing them. Shoes don't wear out (much) from being put on and taken off, and weekly use is light use. On the flip side, four years is nothing. I have shoes I bought over thirty years ago, and all I've ever done is replace the insoles. Even the laces are original.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        Trips to the office and general errands, work around the house and yard, walks through the park and neighborhood, playing with the kids at the playground, some light bike riding along with sometimes bike riding as a commute. Normal everyday wear stuff for an office drone. At least weekly, because I switch off between the two shoes (one's more grey and the other is black) and some flip flops depending on the weather for my general everyday wear. Some days I'll wear nicer shoes, some days I'll wear one of my pairs of boots, so its not really an every day thing to wear those shoes but each probably gets at least 2 days a week on average of all day wear. I'd say over four years of this a few days a week on a $9 pair of sneakers is pretty decent. They'll likely hit at least six or seven before replacement. And yeah, I have some nice dress shoes that I've had for twenty years that pretty much look like the day I bought them. They get worn like 2-3 times a year. I also have leather cowboy boots I bought over 15 years ago that had their heels replaced a couple of years ago and are otherwise still in great shape. Both were more than $9 though. I think the boots were like $110 back when I bought them at Cavender's. The comment I was replying to: > I can’t friggin’ believe how bad $70 sneakers can be these days Even in the 90s my sneakers usually fell apart within a few years, and I rarely even owned $70 sneakers back then even adjusted for inflation. These days I can get sneakers for about $15 that last just about as long as the sneakers I owned in the 90s. That's the equivalent of buying ~$6 shoes in 1990 by many inflation calculators. These are my cheap sneakers, a little bit different but the same brand and general style: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Athletic-Works-Men-s-Banded-Jogger-Slip-on-Athletic-Sneakers-Wide-Width-Available/1397321939 https://www.walmart.com/ip/Athletic-Works-Men-s-Banded-Jogge...
kasey_junk 2y ago
Here is an American made work shirt for $70 https://www.allamericanclothing.com/collections/mens-long-sleeve-shirts/products/heavyweight-khaki-work-shirt-made-in-usa-b455 https://www.allamericanclothing.com/collections/mens-long-sl... it's in khaki not blue and the cloth is twill vs chambray but thats because twill is a better fabric for the use case. And as a reminder blue collar work was _an improvement_ over the default which was agricultural work. Most workers in the US could not afford to buy clothing from a catalog in the 1930s. The dress comparison was as opposed to her peer group who wore clothes made out of seed bags.
pwndByDeath 2y ago
Perhaps the true inflation tracks the price of equivalent shirts
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  If you're saying there are equivalent shirts today that are as good but just in different styles and materials, I don't think there are, not at the inflation-adjusted ~$18. $50, and maybe you're getting somewhere. Maybe. I do get that the specific type I called out might have some functional equivalent that's simply a different style & material but is just as good, but not that cheap, they don't. Under $150, probably, sure. Under $50? No. This suggests that the cost of clothing has inflated at more like 3x the nominal inflation rate, despite the existence of $18 (or cheaper!) shirts—the inflation was eaten up by worsening quality, rather than showing up in prices, but like for like, even with a generous "functional equivalent" accounting, the change was more like $0.79 -> $50+ than $0.79 -> ~$18—your "equivalent" dollar under the latter calculation in-fact buys less.
  - pwndByDeath 2y ago
    I'm curious what other things when compared for quality would have a higher than 'normal' inflation. Perhaps we've been suffering a higher inflation across many 'dimensions'. If CPI doesn't control for enshitification, we technically have more inflation than we believe
  - kasey_junk 2y ago
    You are talking about the hedonic adjustments which is a hugely studied part of inflation calculations. For any way to calculate broad inflation you’ll find products that inflated more than the calculation (and less). Your own example is an interesting one because a) it’s very hard to compare clothing by objective quality b) you’re changing the goal posts. I’ve found a carhart product that nearly exactly matches your specification and msrp’s for $40. I’ve seen discounters selling it for $25. Which is getting very close to your specific target.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

palmotea 2y ago

>> I’ve long suspected a lot of supposed economic progress since, especially, the 1970s, has just been goods getting worse. > Go look at what it costs to get a chambray work shirt (where we got the term “blue collar”, so, made for physical labor, not something fancy) made with similar-quality fabric and construction to a common 1940s or 1950s offering in a Sears catalog. > How do you know they were better made back then? I think it's pretty clear based on what I've read about purchasing behavior back then: people would own a relatively small quantity of clothes (compared to today), which they'd wear for a long time. That just wouldn't be a tenable strategy given modern quality. Also, historically, stuff in the Sears catalog wasn't super special high-end stuff. It was common mass market stuff.

lesostep 2y ago
> would own a relatively small quantity of clothes (compared to today), which they'd wear for a long time. That just wouldn't be a tenable strategy given modern quality. one problem though. My clothing would also last noticeably longer if I was hand-washing it. How much longer I don't actually know, but some of the dresses that was passed to me from older generations have never seen the inside of a washing machine. I also can find similar fabric in some stores, so, theoretically, some clothes today would also live for decades. We have to adjust to washing machines and our washing habits. Some people I know wash their jeans every week. Every. Week. On a high speed. Yeah no shit they would fall apart in a year, that's like 20-30 washings in a year if they had 2 pairs.
- palmotea 2y ago
  >> would own a relatively small quantity of clothes (compared to today), which they'd wear for a long time. That just wouldn't be a tenable strategy given modern quality. > one problem though. My clothing would also last noticeably longer if I was hand-washing it. While modern clothing might last longer if hand washed, the question is how long. Up-thread it was noted an old $18 (adjusted for inflation) work shirt has the quality features of a $200+ shirt today. I'm under the impression that no amount of babying would allow many modern clothing items to last a long as people used to wear their clothes.