[131012]

> I think the argument that automated outputs are inherently and universally worse on objective quality measures

Just remove universally and the argument stands. The point here is to focus on the curve (it will depress the overall quality of products) not the outliers (I really like my Patagonia jacket).

[zmgsabst]

I’m unconvinced: machine made fabrics go into my nicest shirts, at a price I can afford several.

How would quality be improved by making the fabric by hand? — how would I benefit from a less standard, less fine, more expensive weave of those textiles?

Machines enable cheaper goods; but the preference for buying them is down to individuals — eg, I think it’s great I can also get cheap, relatively disposable tshirts. According to you that “depresses the overall quality”; but I’m struggling to understand how the facts that a) I have better and cheaper dress shirts and b) I have cheap tshirts I don’t care about damaging when cleaning, sweating during exercise, etc together make my life worse.

Even if by some obscure metric the existence of the tshirts and my ownership of them “depresses” quality.

[andrewmutz]

I don’t think it does stand. During the Industrial Revolution, automated production replaced craftsmen and often produced a better product.

Specifically, interchangeable parts were a product of industrial automation. Craftsmen were not able to build parts to the same level of precision as machines, so true interchangeability only came when the craftsmen were replaced.

[aeon_ai]

As a percentage of all outputs, perhaps - But increasing to 20% high quality of 10000 vs 50% high quality of 500 would have meant an increase in absolute terms