My mom’s 50 year old magnifier from the CCCP era. The star is a state quality mark of the USSR which works as a certification of quality.professor__doom t1_j1134qr wrote
Reply to comment by DiaMat2040 in My mom’s 50 year old magnifier from the CCCP era. The star is a state quality mark of the USSR which works as a certification of quality. by daanikp
General build quality in the USSR was terrible.
Here's an article with a lot of academic sources discussing the overall low quality of Soviet consumer goods: https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-durable-goods/
If something was for military or government use, it was generally pretty good. Otherwise, you got whatever crap the local factory spat out, because there was no competition.
CharlesDeBerry t1_j118pdr wrote
I find that in the past this was true, but many products I find today are made very very cheaply, even good quality brands I have bought before are breaking. It feels like we ended up with the same result just with more steps and more waste. So I am thinking maybe there needs to be some oversight in quality of consumer goods again to decrease waste and increase durability.
BoilerButtSlut t1_j11dzh7 wrote
Sure, but then everything you want to buy will be 2-3x more costly.
You can find long-lasting stuff without issue. It just costs a lot more. Durability costs money.
CleanAssociation9394 t1_j11xdkl wrote
I wouldn’t say “without issue.” You have to hack your way through mounds of junk and a high price is no guarantee of quality.
BoilerButtSlut t1_j11xxjn wrote
Not really. You either buy commercial or you can find which particular brands are fine.
High price doesn't necessarily mean high quality, but low price is a guarantee of low quality.
CleanAssociation9394 t1_j11y27w wrote
Surely you have read this sub enough to know that’s not true.
BoilerButtSlut t1_j11zium wrote
Yes, it is.
There's just a lot of people here who don't know what they are talking about pretending to be experts.
professor__doom t1_j120egz wrote
It's not like consumer goods manufacturers are making insane margins. Single digit operating profit is pretty normal in that industry.
The question is just "do consumers want to pay more for quality," and the answer is virtually always "not really."
The bulletproof appliances at your grandparents' house cost a FORTUNE back then compared to what people earned: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/appliance-shopping-1959-vs-2012/
The cost of a washer/dryer set in 1959 represented 181.8 hours of work at the average hourly wage.
A washer/dryer set in 2012 represented 31 hours of work at the average hourly wage.
The newer model might only last 5-10 years instead of a lifetime. But businesses realized that that's fine for most consumers. Maybe even preferable - "I'll move before then; I don't want to pay extra so the next owner doesn't have to buy a washer and dryer."
CleanAssociation9394 t1_j11x8aq wrote
Not because there was no competition. There’s plenty of competition for the crap we are surrounded by today, always 50 different brands of everything.
professor__doom t1_j12115l wrote
I'm talking about USSR products. In the USSR, there was genuinely no competition. No branding. Literally whatever your local factory churned out.
USA: Tyson, Purdue, oscar meyer, store brand chicken, etc. available nationwide
CleanAssociation9394 t1_j121ct2 wrote
I meant the lack of competition wasn’t the problem. It was more about prioritizing resources.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments