Brands got worse on purpose

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of the problem: brands and “hidden inflation”

  • Many commenters say brand names are now weak signals of quality; reputation often persists after quality deteriorates.
  • Quality decline is framed as “hidden inflation”: nominal prices may be similar, but to get 1980s–1940s-level durability in clothes or toys now costs much more.
  • Examples: work shirts vs 1930s Sears catalogs, modern “entry-level” Barbies vs 1980s ones, Brooks Brothers polos, FAO Schwarz toys, Doc Martens, appliances, books arriving damaged.

Private equity, roll‑ups, and trademarks

  • Strong focus on PE buying distressed brands, offshoring/cheapening production, and exploiting residual trust in the logo.
  • Factory outlets and “overstock” channels are described as selling purpose-made, lower-quality lines under legacy names, seen by some as deceptive.
  • Several argue this behavior is “capitalism working as designed”; others say it’s a particular financialized variant, not an inherent necessity.

Consumer strategies and surviving quality

  • Tactics:
    • Favor brands that still manufacture locally or in-house; use the linked Ledger and subreddits like BuyItForLife.
    • Buy professional/industrial gear or military-proven (not just “military grade” marketed) products.
    • Support smaller makers, local designers, and domestic supply chains even at higher prices.
  • Tension over affordability: some see $99 jeans as normal, others say that’s unattainable for many.

Regulation, systems, and responsibility

  • Suggestions include restricting the sale of trademarks divorced from operations and rethinking bankruptcy/trademark law.
  • Broader debates:
    • Whether consumerism and undiscerning markets drive enshittification more than “capitalism” per se.
    • Claims that PE is net-destructive vs defenders noting its theoretical role in reallocating capital and “cleaning inefficiencies.”

Trust, AI, and the blog itself

  • Significant meta-discussion questions whether the site’s essays are heavily AI-generated and under-disclosed.
  • Critics worry about fabricated anecdotes and “AI DDOS’ing” public discourse, making verification costly.
  • The author states they use LLMs for research/editing, verify facts, and aim to build a public, evolving Ledger of who owns what and how quality has changed. Skepticism remains for some.