It is less a craving and more just a general response to availability? It isn't that people have a craving to spend less on things. But, if something is readily available for less, why would you pay more? Indeed, would you expect people to pay more for your goods, if someone else has equivalent goods for cheaper? Why?
Maybe? Clothing is a big counter to your claim here. As is anything that can be reliably machined.
Yes, there is "cheap" clothing. No, the more expensive clothing isn't necessarily better. A bog standard t-shirt is a bog standard t-shirt. With a minimum of quality control, and anything on top of that is not adding to the utility of it.
The machining revolution really hurts a lot of the idea that labor in is indicative of quality.
As a counterexample, some casual googling about cotton suggests that there is an ideal workflow which will result in superior cotton fibers before harvesting. Here is a quote from the conclusion section of the linked article:
"Cotton fiber quality is shaped by a mix of genetics, growing conditions, and field management techniques. High-grade cotton relies on precise measurements of fiber length, strength, and micronaire, along with maintaining proper color and cleanliness throughout its growth. These elements play a key role in determining processing efficiency and market value across the supply chain."
At the most basic, if one farmer harvests his cotton with no consideration of the above issues, whereas another farmer carefully studies, prepares, tests, etc based on the above considerations, wouldn't there be added value and added cost of production?
I personally believe that in a past era, farmers intuitively learned these factors and competed with each other to make their best harvests, and the bog standard t-shirt got a quality buff as a fringe benefit.
Whereas nowadays, the farmer has to drop quality for quantity to compete with digitally-connected markets.
You can personally believe it, but you also need to provide some evidence to the claim. Farmers that can't afford the R&D team necessary to learn a lot of this stuff will have trouble competing here. Such that, I'm comfortable claiming this sort of advantage will only consolidate the profits into bigger corporations.
And, indeed, if you look into high quality cotton supply, you find there are relatively few names.
Lower cost of a good is a generally good indicator that the good is low quality
Unfortunately the inverse is not true at all
Higher cost on a good is not at all a reliable indicator of whether or not the good is high quality
There is a pretty big incentive for producers and sellers to produce low quality goods and convince consumers they are high quality, so they can sell them for a high margin
Not necessarily, but it's total shit when you buy a t-shirt and it unravels after only wearing it a few times. That QC doesn't always happen is what's the problem, so buying the cheapest isn't wise.
I mean... sure? Has that been happening for you? I have had some shirts that didn't last as long as others. Oddly, I don't think they are the ones I paid the least for.
I'm fortunate that my clothes still last quite a while, so I don't know what to say. Still have some t-shirts from the 90s, oddly.
I can say that if you wash cottons with synthetics, that will shorten the life of the cottons. If you use any "stretch" or "no iron" clothing, you almost certainly have a synthetic mix. It isn't that they are lower quality. Nor are they designed to not last as long. They are designed for that stretch and to look flat as their main goal.
While it's true that they aren't designed to not last as long, not lasting as long is a side effect of their design decisions.
The primary reason for the tendency of clothing to wear out faster is the textile manufacturing processes allow for the production of thinner fabrics at a cheaper cost per yard. As anyone who sews or knits can tell you, thinner fabric wears out faster. It allows companies like Zara, H&M, Walmart, Rack, et al to sell their product at marginal cost increase for higher YoY profits with a faster replacement cycle.
Furthermore, it's a plainly stated business strategy of fast fashion that fungibility and the production of disposable consumables is core to their business. As that type of fashion cannibalized market share from more traditional brands that banked on quality more than affordability in the 90s, those same brands responded by creating separate imprints ( Off Fifth, Rack, et al ) or just wholesale adoption of the approach ( e.g. H&M ).
Fast forward to 2025 and we're having a conversation about whether or not the quality delta in clothing is real or a Mandela Effect. The reality is unfortunately the more banal "number go up by any means necessary" explanation.
Mostly agreed. This is what I meant by them not necessarily being lower quality. In many ways, it is a by product of the race to super thin threads. Which, amusingly, used to be a sign of ultra high quality. :D
And clothing has always been a consumable. Always.
