“Mechanization did what it promised: productivity and output surged, costs fell, and consumers benefited.” The main question indeed is whether consumers truly benefited. Making everything cheaper *and* lower quality, is that really a win in the long run? Pushing that logic to the extreme, you get enshittified apps that don’t even actually work for the users, hardware you can’t repair, and things like fast fashion.
I would argue that clothes are much better/cheaper today then they were during the handloom era! Likely the quality decreases at first, but over time things balance out. (Ultimately as someone who has sold products to consumers for too much of my life, I would say that people are incredibly thrifty and unwilling to pay for quality.)
Supply and demand, yes, but I would rather advocate for a system that incentivizes quality and robustness by default. Whether people want cheaper products or have no other choice is another debate. Inexpensive products not built to last might end up more costly in the long run and often carry a hidden extra cost to society.
A crucial question, rather than a gotcha. A return to quality, durability, and robustness is only possible when you have well-paid, respected craftspeople, combined with a different, perhaps more local, mode of diffusion. That means luxury in today's world. But should it be? Maybe. But even luxury products do not always embody those aspects. Ultimately, that is a cultural, economic, and even a civilizational decision. There is no denying the positives brought by technological improvements and automation. That said, we lost some originality and quality in the process of automation. In an oligopoly race, you must sacrifice a bit of creativity to the margin. It's easy to understand why that happened and why that trend will accelerate from here. But I don't have definitive answers on how to get these things back. It is a choice dictated by economics, more than by ideologies, and only partially a consumer's choice. It's probably not about late-stage capitalism or left versus right. If collectivism had better results, we would know. If anything, communist regimes were famous for producing extremely poor-quality goods. Movements like Degrowth may ask the same question but don’t provide relevant answers either. Regulations don't concern themselves so much with quality. Maybe reformulating the question would help? I dunno.
What a great rundown!
Since you’re a fan of lossless audio, please tell us about what kit you’re using to listen to it!
I have the nicest speakers that Costco provided on sale haha. Once this publication gets big enough, I'll get myself something like these though...https://us.kef.com/products/r3-meta?variant=43730220908791
“Mechanization did what it promised: productivity and output surged, costs fell, and consumers benefited.” The main question indeed is whether consumers truly benefited. Making everything cheaper *and* lower quality, is that really a win in the long run? Pushing that logic to the extreme, you get enshittified apps that don’t even actually work for the users, hardware you can’t repair, and things like fast fashion.
I would argue that clothes are much better/cheaper today then they were during the handloom era! Likely the quality decreases at first, but over time things balance out. (Ultimately as someone who has sold products to consumers for too much of my life, I would say that people are incredibly thrifty and unwilling to pay for quality.)
Supply and demand, yes, but I would rather advocate for a system that incentivizes quality and robustness by default. Whether people want cheaper products or have no other choice is another debate. Inexpensive products not built to last might end up more costly in the long run and often carry a hidden extra cost to society.
Not a gotcha, but genuine question: What does that system look like?
A crucial question, rather than a gotcha. A return to quality, durability, and robustness is only possible when you have well-paid, respected craftspeople, combined with a different, perhaps more local, mode of diffusion. That means luxury in today's world. But should it be? Maybe. But even luxury products do not always embody those aspects. Ultimately, that is a cultural, economic, and even a civilizational decision. There is no denying the positives brought by technological improvements and automation. That said, we lost some originality and quality in the process of automation. In an oligopoly race, you must sacrifice a bit of creativity to the margin. It's easy to understand why that happened and why that trend will accelerate from here. But I don't have definitive answers on how to get these things back. It is a choice dictated by economics, more than by ideologies, and only partially a consumer's choice. It's probably not about late-stage capitalism or left versus right. If collectivism had better results, we would know. If anything, communist regimes were famous for producing extremely poor-quality goods. Movements like Degrowth may ask the same question but don’t provide relevant answers either. Regulations don't concern themselves so much with quality. Maybe reformulating the question would help? I dunno.
Those are great speakers! Here’s hoping you get there soon!