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.DiaMat2040 t1_j101svr wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] 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
r/buyitforlife would have had a blast on sowjet russia tbh. it does wonders for average product lifes when the profit incentive doesnt stand in the way
professor__doom t1_j1134qr wrote
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.
BoilerButtSlut t1_j11dr86 wrote
No it would not have. My family in Hungary had soviet-made junk in the 80s.
It was all garbage. It's why it all disappeared as soon as the economies opened up. No one wanted a TV that takes 10+ minutes to warm up before it can show you a picture. No one wanted a deathtrap car made of cotton composite, no matter how easily it could be fixed with a screwdriver or how long it would last.
To be clear: they were capable of making quality stuff, but that was for export. That typically wasn't available for the average person.
Fyvrfg t1_j10jhwy wrote
You're talking out of your ass
DiaMat2040 t1_j10jr83 wrote
google planned obsolescence and why companies do it. also, why would a planned economy create cheap crap?
Fyvrfg t1_j10kp0x wrote
It would create cheap crap so they could reach their quota. Soviet cars were pieces of shit you had to wait 5 years and more to buy. Even then everyone wanted a western one. Same thing with household appliances and clothes. "Soviet quality" is a myth carried by russian nationalists. Nobody wanted to make quality stuff, it just had to be acceptable
BananaPeely t1_j10nohw wrote
The same incentive for planned obsolence drives quality
BoilerButtSlut t1_j11x70b wrote
Planned obsolescence isn't a thing.
Source: am engineer.
To answer your question, they made junk because there wasn't any incentive to make anything good: the economy was closed. You couldn't import anything, so there was no competition. If there were only two TV makers, and no one got fired or lost their jobs because one TV was worse than the other, well it's just a race to the bottom to make it as shitty as possible.
I've used soviet-era stuff. My family lived with it for decades. It was garbage. It's not a coincidence it disappeared or broke shortly after everything opened up.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments