Your average k-mart shirt in the 90s was much better quality than today. We can make clothes cheaper now because of technology advances. We can work with thinner fabric at higher volumes with the same amount of labor. Labor was actually cheaper in the 90s so it has been quite a change.
Partially, although the decreasing quality of products is a real phenomenon under capitalism. A factory owner could make sturdy goods with high quality material... but they can save costs with less material, or a lower quality substance. Plus, there's more return customers the shorter the lifespan of the good. When goods become worse because of cost cutting or because the manufacture can't keep up with cheaper-yet-worse competitors, that's called market obsolescence. When capitalists deliberately shorten a good's lifespan to increase returning sales, it's called planned obsolescence.
Isnt this literally just survivorship bias?
Your average k-mart shirt in the 90s was much better quality than today. We can make clothes cheaper now because of technology advances. We can work with thinner fabric at higher volumes with the same amount of labor. Labor was actually cheaper in the 90s so it has been quite a change.
Partially, although the decreasing quality of products is a real phenomenon under capitalism. A factory owner could make sturdy goods with high quality material... but they can save costs with less material, or a lower quality substance. Plus, there's more return customers the shorter the lifespan of the good. When goods become worse because of cost cutting or because the manufacture can't keep up with cheaper-yet-worse competitors, that's called market obsolescence. When capitalists deliberately shorten a good's lifespan to increase returning sales, it's called planned obsolescence.
I dont disagree with the broader point, i just think that the example here doesnt prove anything
deleted by creator