[andrewvc]

Maybe, but really consumerism wasn’t a thing for most of history because almost no one had the money to decorate intentionally in the way we do today. The very wealthy did to varying extents. When we look at the past we always imagine ourselves to be the ones in Downton Abbey, but most people were lucky to inherit some furniture.

I would argue that the reverence for real wood and craft you espoused (and I share) is in part possible due to living in a consumerist society. For what it’s worth it is still possible to buy those same quality goods today, and certainly at lower cost . However, I would balk at paying the historical fraction of my income (or multiple if we go back to the 1700s), for a new bed.

In short cheap dishonest crap is what we ultimately want. It lets us focus our time and resources elsewhere

[scott_w]

> Maybe, but really consumerism wasn’t a thing for most of history because almost no one had the money to decorate intentionally in the way we do today.

This reminds me of being a kid excitedly repeating the trope I’d just learned: “Back in your day it was nice because you didn’t need to lock your doors!”

To which she responded “Because none of us had anything worth stealing.”

[throaway123213]

Illuminating point but quite a lot of people live in 1st world countries where you still dont need to lock your door. Even in a major city.

[directevolve]

A good depiction of the gritty realities and the meaning of material striving for the very poor in turn of the century farm life is the novel Independent People, by Halldor Laxness, an Icelandic nobel laureate.

[AlotOfReading]

Keep in mind that Halldor's book is depicting a situation fairly specific to Iceland: people recently freed from debt bondage, in a desperately poor and isolated area caught between much larger forces. It's not an attempt to accurately depict what it meant to be working poor for American laborers, like say grapes of wrath.

[ip26]

My first exposure to this - tired of $40 particleboard bookshelves and tables, I went looking for solid wood furniture, reasoning it was fine to spend a little more for something that would last. I found it- and discovered humble, small tables were a months pay.

I don't want cheap crap, but I suddenly appreciated why we've moved away from tables that can support a car.

[p1necone]

This is true of basically everything people complain about having gotten worse over time.

Whiteware and kitchen appliances are the same - you can absolutely buy a fridge, or a stand mixer or whatever that will work well and last forever. It's just the value proposition compared to cheap crap that will still likely last for a few years but at a 1/5th of the price is not great unless you're going to use it really heavily.

[donkeybeer]

What's wrong with plywood? Why jump instantly from particleboard to hardwood?

[permo-w]

even second hand?

[watwut]

> because almost no one had the money to decorate intentionally

Poor people always decorated and still do. There is basically no larger human culture where decorations dont take a place. The only ones I can think of are small religious orders that dont decorate to deprieve themselves.

You go to any poor area and see dirt, mess, issues and people showing off decorations in their houses or on themselves.

[andrewvc]

You are misquoting me. I wrote:

> to decorate intentionally in the way we do today

Most people not so long ago did not have the luxury of saying “that shirt is so last last year” , or “that living room set is a relic of the 90s!”.

Of course people always find ways to decorate and show off, but that’s different than what OP talked about WRT quality furniture. In the past that stuff was so expensive you bought it and lived with it, possibly across multiple generations. If the style changed you probably couldn’t afford to just swap it out.

[Aeolun]

> However, I would balk at paying the historical fraction of my income (or multiple if we go back to the 1700s), for a new bed.

It’s probably fine if you are going to use it for the rest of your life. Or you can pay just for the nails, and do the rest yourself.

[echelon]

A lot of online culture laments the modern American life and blames the Boomers for all of our "woes".

The 1950s - 2000s post war boom was a tailwind very few countries get to experience. It's funny how we look back at it as the norm, because that's not what the rest of the world experienced.

There's a reason everything in America was super sized for so long.

Things have averaged out a bit now, but if you look at the trendline, we're still doing remarkably well. The fact that our relatively small population supports the GDP it does is wild.

[roenxi]

> The fact that our relatively small population supports the GDP it does is wild.

Yes and no. It is very impressive what humans can do and the US is a remarkable country for managing to achieve what they have. On the other hand, if we're talking GDP it is basically just a trendline [0] of whether you let people better their own lives or not.

The main reason for US success on the GDP front is that the median administrator chooses to make people fail and the US does the best job of resisting that tendency. To me the mystery is less why the US succeeds but more why polities are so committed to failing. It isn't even like there is a political ideology that genuinely wants to make it hard to do business [1]. It mostly happens by accident, foolishness and ignorance.

[0] https://www.grumpy-economist.com/p/the-cost-of-regulation - see the figure, note the logarithmic axis

[1] I suppose the environmentalists, maybe.

[Aloha]

1850-1950 is much closer to a norm over human history -

3+ catastrophic major wars

3+ other minor ones.

2+ great depressions (each of which was as large as ever financial panic 1951-current combined)

3+ financial panic events

At least one pandemic - plus local epidemics were pretty common.

When I tell people "its never been better than it is today" they dont believe me, but its the honest to god truth.

[carlosjobim]

> The 1950s - 2000s post war boom was a tailwind very few countries get to experience.

All countries who had participated in WWII experienced it, winners and losers.

What you said is the compete opposite of the truth.

[integralid]

>A lot of online culture laments the modern American life and blames the Boomers for all of our "woes".

>The 1950s - 2000s post war boom was a tailwind very few countries get to experience. It's funny how we look back at it as the norm, because that's not what the rest of the world experienced.

Especially ironic when perpetrated by youth from countries outside of America - like mine. I'm not a boomer, but my parents generation had it rough and my life was much easier in comparison. Importing "boomer" memes is a bit stupid in this context. Hell, even the name makes no sense here, because our "baby boom" happened later, in 1980-1990s.