Do Cheap, Mediocre Products Drive out Good Products?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=elmwood]
I found that the “older is better!”" mentality is really dominant in the Rust Belt region. I almost never had such debates when I lived elsewhere, but here in Cleveland, and back in my hometown in Buffalo, there seems to be a near-universal belief that older … well, older everything is built more solidly, and is more durable and reliable, than the products of today.

“Get an older car! There’s fewer things like computers or power windows to go wrong. They built them to last! You could run a Dodge slant-six for months on no oil, and it would just keep on going! They don’t crumple up in accidents like today’s tin foil deathtraps!”

“Old houses are built so much better than newer houses! They were usually built by immigrant craftsmen from Germany and Italy, and they used real two-by-fours. because they didn’t have building codes in the day, they were overengineered. They’ll still be standing long after today’s McMansions are dilapidated wrecks.”

Could the legacy of the former dominance of manufacturing in the region have contributed to the “older is better!” mindset in the Rust Belt?
[/QUOTE]

I’m sure that “older is better” mentality contributed to much of the mining, manufacturing and steel production leaving the Rust Belt.

Yes. The Pyramids are very old and built very well. They are not, however, the most efficient design for a structure if you want to maximize the livable space inside.

Yes, John Henry the steel drivin’ man beat that ole machine. And then his head exploded.
Also, cars are DESIGNED to crumple in accidents so they don’t kill what’s inside of them.

62

[QUOTE=athelas]
That usage demonstrates a basic ignorance of the concept of demand. The demand for a product is defined by how much people will pay for it, and therefore determines (along with production costs) the profit that the company makes. Saying that a product would be unprofitable even “no matter how high the demand is” is nonsense.
[/QUOTE]

That’s true for ELASTIC demand, or in other words, demand changes inversely with price.

INELASTIC demand, on the other hand, is the situation where the demand doesn’t really change with price. Gasoline, heating oil, residential natural gas, water, cancer drugs, etc… are all examples of relatively inelastic demand items.

Within reason, a person who burns 2 gallons of gasoline a day on his commute is still going to burn that same 2 gallons regardless of whether it costs $0.87 or $3.50.

As for the OP… I think that the availability of cheaper, lower-quality products doesn’t do anything to change the availability of higher-end products. What it may do is increase the price somewhat, but they’ll be just as available as people want them to be.

Let’s use an example:

Just because Jimenez Arms’ pistols exist and are available for under $200, doesn’t mean that people don’t buy H&K, Colt or Sig-Sauers for 3 times the price.

For that matter, just because Ruger makes pistols for 2/3 price of a H&K or a Sig, doesn’t mean that people don’t buy the Sigs or H&Ks.

What the existence of Jimenez and Ruger do accomplish is to allow people who for whatever reason, wouldn’t buy a pistol for over $200 or say $400 to buy one. The people who want Sigs are still going to buy them.

If all pistols were as nice as Sigs, it wouldn’t mean that they’d be cheaper; just that fewer people would buy them.

Look at something like a TV; way back in the day when they were repairable and very expensive, families typically owned one or maybe two. Nowadays, they’re relatively disposable, yet families own multiple ones. And like others have said, my $200 27" Philips beats holy hell out of my folks’ old 27" RCA from 1979 that was like $500.

63

[QUOTE=RickJay]

For every anecdotal example you provide of something you claim isn’t made as well as it used to be I can provide two examples of things that are better. Cars - the largest purchase most Westerners will ever make that they don’t live in - are so much better than they used to be it’s almost absurd to make the comparison. Think about that; the single most important consumer product most people will ever buy is vastly better than it used to be. The cars they made 30, 40 years ago were, by today’s standards, garbage.

[/QUOTE]

Word.

Heck, even 20-25 years ago you bought a car expecting 5 years. You couldn’t even get a loan for more than 3 years. Now, even a cheap little car you can expect 10 years easy - and with much less tinkering and repairs. Price for an equivalent model is probably lower to adjusting for inflation (heck maybe not even having to adjust for inflation).

Cars have mushroomed in quality in the last 20 years alone, let alone 30-40 years.

64

[QUOTE=athelas]
That usage demonstrates a basic ignorance of the concept of demand. The demand for a product is defined by how much people will pay for it, and therefore determines (along with production costs) the profit that the company makes. Saying that a product would be unprofitable even “no matter how high the demand is” is nonsense.
[/QUOTE]

I’m glad you said that so I wouldn’t have to.

Businesses are “quality” neutral. If they are churning out what anyone perceives aesthetically as “cheap and mediocre” it’s merely because that’s what most people actually want. What appears to be driving out “quality” is merely the preference of the multitude of our fellow man. You want “quality?” Change the minds of the multitude.

65

[QUOTE=Flipshod]

Businesses are “quality” neutral. If they are churning out what anyone perceives aesthetically as “cheap and mediocre” it’s merely because that’s what most people actually want. What appears to be driving out “quality” is merely the preference of the multitude of our fellow man. You want “quality?” Change the minds of the multitude.
[/QUOTE]

There’s a difference between not caring about quality and not having the information to make an informed choice.