5 ms·

My dad was privy to my grandfather complaining to my great-great grandfather about the bad quality of houses, tractors, and clothes in the 1950s — that the stuf

My dad was privy to my grandfather complaining to my great-great grandfather about the bad quality of houses, tractors, and clothes in the 1950s — that the stuff built in the 1910s and 1920s was so much better. Carl (in his thick southern German accent) made the point that all the cheap clothes they bought to keep them out of jail (public nudity) disintegrated in a year and the only clothes that survived were the expensive ones, or the random ones that somehow survived the test of time. Apparently he'd had the same argument with his grandfather back in the 1890s. Sooo... I dunno; maybe things have always gotten worse, and were always better in the past? That doesn't seem to jive with the way I live vs the literal log fucking cabin they lived in.

jollyllama 2y ago
> that the stuff built in the 1910s and 1920s was so much better. Pre-war goods.
spenczar5 2y ago
> That doesn't seem to jive with the way I live vs the literal log fucking cabin they lived in. I propose that different goods have different trajectories. Lighting is better and cheaper than 100 years ago. Boots maybe aren't.
- amoshebb 2y ago
  Maybe, but boots for sure are better and cheaper than 100 years ago. I think the only thing that makes this slightly confusing is that what were old mass-produced workwear have become limited-run fashion items, so looking at things like M1918 boots or cowboy boots and comparing to modern Red Wings or Luccheses it's tempting to say "Oh how much more expensive leather-soled brass-hardware hand-tanned full-grain leather boots are now", ignoring that Modern soldiers wear lightweight goretex running shoe-boots and farmers wear cozy neoprene pull-ons with anti-slip soles and carbon fibre toes, both of which cost half of inflation-adjusted prices of the objectively inferior boots of 1925.
  - viciousvoxel 2y ago
    You're right that modern work and military boots are generally better for their specific purpose -- they are certainly much lighter and usually cheaper than their older equivalents. They can also be more ergonomic and breathable while still being water-resistant due to modern materials and processes. But I will say that the durability of leather, metal-hardware, stitched/nailed-sole boots is unmatched. They can be re-soled and repaired unlike (most of) their modern counterparts, and will last generations if properly cared for. And there are still jobs out there for which they are the best option.
psunavy03 2y ago
Go look up the origin of the word "shoddy" as it relates to the crappy field uniforms unscrupulous vendors sold to the Federal government during the Civil War.
- klondike_klive 2y ago
  That's interesting - I always assumed that "shoddy" and "slipshod" were related since their meanings are so similar, but apparently not! Thanks for leading me to that definition.
bluGill 2y ago
What people think is quality and what is are not always the same. Modern building codes make the cheapest houses much better than the best houses from 100 years ago. Nobody knows how to see insulation so they don't count it. Old houses often overbuild some obvious beam and so that part of the house is very strong, but some other beam wasn't strong. Yes old houses had access to old growth trees that were stronger, but that doesn't make up for good engineering.
- thechao 2y ago
  The old family farm, in Indiana, had all these short "barns". Because they were from Germany, they couldn't figure out how to build properly footed foundations, in the Indiana wilderness. The result was the bottom logs of the houses kept rotting out. So, every 10-or-so years, they'd just build a new log cabin. The old log cabin was the new barn. And, yeah, the old growth logs meant most of the cabins were only 4 logs high, since each log was 3' thick, after they were squared up. By the time the cabin rotted out the second log, the last logs were dry enough they'd stop rotting. The farm had a number of these weird, short, log cabin barns.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  Insulation used to be a ton less important—wood and gas heating were cheap, and nobody had air conditioning because it didn't exist yet. What was more important was the layout of the house, the windows, and the ceiling heights, all being thoughtfully arranged to allow the right kinds of airflow in the right seasons. Most modern houses in climates like seen in most of the US turn into an unbearable mold-farm of a wet oven if the AC is turned off over the Summer—they depend on AC or they start kinda decaying in place within a year, aside from being unbearable to enter on a hot day. A 1900-construction house that hasn't been updated to something like modern standards is far more comfortable to live in, in those circumstances. (your broader point that some things in modern houses are better due to e.g. improving materials or engineering even as other things like framing have gotten worse due to worsening materials, I don't dispute, but modern house design as far as airtightness and insulation is very much a trade-off that leaves them dependent on AC in many—and, as the Earth warms, ever-more—climates, not strictly an improvement)
bmacho 2y ago
Is this true tho? It feels like a made-up reply and gaslighting. You demonstrated that you can say the opposite of what OP experiences. Now what?
- thechao 2y ago
  It is unfair you're being downvoted by pointing out my anecdote. I argued the same point, too! Here's another point: the Greeks used to complain about their students using punctuation & spaces in their scrolls, because it'd rot their pupils' brains; when novels (books!) became popular, academics thought it'd be the downfall of civilization. New is different; different is bad.
  - consteval 2y ago
    There’s two things going on here: 1. You’re, rightfully, pointing out the “kids these days” bias that societies tend to have. Humans are risk-averse by nature and old things register in our monkey brains as better. This is all true. 2. Some goods are actually worse. Objectively. Clothing is one of them. I buy and curate menswear from the 1960s and 1970s. Full suits, trousers, vests, trench coats, you know. The quality is just not comparable to modern menswear. Almost all of these items look brand new, and when pressed, better than new clothes made today. They’re much sturdier, with no fraying or pilling. Most hold their shape to an unbelievable degree - one pressing session will easily last for 3 months of wear. The viscose and polyester stuff is better, too, but naturally not as long-living as cotton or wool. But still, I have seen 60 year old polyester trousers with no pilling. Modern trousers can barely survive 3 washes without pilling.
appleorchard46 2y ago
As the supply chain strengthens and expands, things breaking becomes more and more acceptable. A hundred years ago if a piece of clothing broke it meant you or a family member would repair it yourself. Fifty years ago you could buy a new one at a clothing store in a city. Now I can order one off Amazon that'll arrive at my doorstep in the morning. Availability is less important for superfluous for unnecessary things, but for things people's lives depend on reliability was important in a way it isn't today. A coat wearing through or a knife breaking could mean death, a long time ago.Things were expected to be cared for and fixed for decades rather than replaced. Shoddy things have always been around, but tolerance for them slowly yet persistently grows.

jollyllama 2y ago

> that the stuff built in the 1910s and 1920s was so much better. Pre-war goods.

spenczar5 2y ago

> That doesn't seem to jive with the way I live vs the literal log fucking cabin they lived in. I propose that different goods have different trajectories. Lighting is better and cheaper than 100 years ago. Boots maybe aren't.

amoshebb 2y ago
Maybe, but boots for sure are better and cheaper than 100 years ago. I think the only thing that makes this slightly confusing is that what were old mass-produced workwear have become limited-run fashion items, so looking at things like M1918 boots or cowboy boots and comparing to modern Red Wings or Luccheses it's tempting to say "Oh how much more expensive leather-soled brass-hardware hand-tanned full-grain leather boots are now", ignoring that Modern soldiers wear lightweight goretex running shoe-boots and farmers wear cozy neoprene pull-ons with anti-slip soles and carbon fibre toes, both of which cost half of inflation-adjusted prices of the objectively inferior boots of 1925.
- viciousvoxel 2y ago
  You're right that modern work and military boots are generally better for their specific purpose -- they are certainly much lighter and usually cheaper than their older equivalents. They can also be more ergonomic and breathable while still being water-resistant due to modern materials and processes. But I will say that the durability of leather, metal-hardware, stitched/nailed-sole boots is unmatched. They can be re-soled and repaired unlike (most of) their modern counterparts, and will last generations if properly cared for. And there are still jobs out there for which they are the best option.

psunavy03 2y ago

Go look up the origin of the word "shoddy" as it relates to the crappy field uniforms unscrupulous vendors sold to the Federal government during the Civil War.

klondike_klive 2y ago
That's interesting - I always assumed that "shoddy" and "slipshod" were related since their meanings are so similar, but apparently not! Thanks for leading me to that definition.

bluGill 2y ago

What people think is quality and what is are not always the same. Modern building codes make the cheapest houses much better than the best houses from 100 years ago. Nobody knows how to see insulation so they don't count it. Old houses often overbuild some obvious beam and so that part of the house is very strong, but some other beam wasn't strong. Yes old houses had access to old growth trees that were stronger, but that doesn't make up for good engineering.

thechao 2y ago
The old family farm, in Indiana, had all these short "barns". Because they were from Germany, they couldn't figure out how to build properly footed foundations, in the Indiana wilderness. The result was the bottom logs of the houses kept rotting out. So, every 10-or-so years, they'd just build a new log cabin. The old log cabin was the new barn. And, yeah, the old growth logs meant most of the cabins were only 4 logs high, since each log was 3' thick, after they were squared up. By the time the cabin rotted out the second log, the last logs were dry enough they'd stop rotting. The farm had a number of these weird, short, log cabin barns.
alabastervlog 2y ago
Insulation used to be a ton less important—wood and gas heating were cheap, and nobody had air conditioning because it didn't exist yet. What was more important was the layout of the house, the windows, and the ceiling heights, all being thoughtfully arranged to allow the right kinds of airflow in the right seasons. Most modern houses in climates like seen in most of the US turn into an unbearable mold-farm of a wet oven if the AC is turned off over the Summer—they depend on AC or they start kinda decaying in place within a year, aside from being unbearable to enter on a hot day. A 1900-construction house that hasn't been updated to something like modern standards is far more comfortable to live in, in those circumstances. (your broader point that some things in modern houses are better due to e.g. improving materials or engineering even as other things like framing have gotten worse due to worsening materials, I don't dispute, but modern house design as far as airtightness and insulation is very much a trade-off that leaves them dependent on AC in many—and, as the Earth warms, ever-more—climates, not strictly an improvement)

bmacho 2y ago

Is this true tho? It feels like a made-up reply and gaslighting. You demonstrated that you can say the opposite of what OP experiences. Now what?

thechao 2y ago
It is unfair you're being downvoted by pointing out my anecdote. I argued the same point, too! Here's another point: the Greeks used to complain about their students using punctuation & spaces in their scrolls, because it'd rot their pupils' brains; when novels (books!) became popular, academics thought it'd be the downfall of civilization. New is different; different is bad.
- consteval 2y ago
  There’s two things going on here: 1. You’re, rightfully, pointing out the “kids these days” bias that societies tend to have. Humans are risk-averse by nature and old things register in our monkey brains as better. This is all true. 2. Some goods are actually worse. Objectively. Clothing is one of them. I buy and curate menswear from the 1960s and 1970s. Full suits, trousers, vests, trench coats, you know. The quality is just not comparable to modern menswear. Almost all of these items look brand new, and when pressed, better than new clothes made today. They’re much sturdier, with no fraying or pilling. Most hold their shape to an unbelievable degree - one pressing session will easily last for 3 months of wear. The viscose and polyester stuff is better, too, but naturally not as long-living as cotton or wool. But still, I have seen 60 year old polyester trousers with no pilling. Modern trousers can barely survive 3 washes without pilling.

appleorchard46 2y ago

As the supply chain strengthens and expands, things breaking becomes more and more acceptable. A hundred years ago if a piece of clothing broke it meant you or a family member would repair it yourself. Fifty years ago you could buy a new one at a clothing store in a city. Now I can order one off Amazon that'll arrive at my doorstep in the morning. Availability is less important for superfluous for unnecessary things, but for things people's lives depend on reliability was important in a way it isn't today. A coat wearing through or a knife breaking could mean death, a long time ago.Things were expected to be cared for and fixed for decades rather than replaced. Shoddy things have always been around, but tolerance for them slowly yet persistently grows.