What people think is quality and what is are not always the same.

Modern building codes make the cheapest houses much better than the best houses from 100 years ago. Nobody knows how to see insulation so they don't count it. Old houses often overbuild some obvious beam and so that part of the house is very strong, but some other beam wasn't strong. Yes old houses had access to old growth trees that were stronger, but that doesn't make up for good engineering.

The old family farm, in Indiana, had all these short "barns". Because they were from Germany, they couldn't figure out how to build properly footed foundations, in the Indiana wilderness. The result was the bottom logs of the houses kept rotting out. So, every 10-or-so years, they'd just build a new log cabin. The old log cabin was the new barn. And, yeah, the old growth logs meant most of the cabins were only 4 logs high, since each log was 3' thick, after they were squared up. By the time the cabin rotted out the second log, the last logs were dry enough they'd stop rotting. The farm had a number of these weird, short, log cabin barns.

Insulation used to be a ton less important—wood and gas heating were cheap, and nobody had air conditioning because it didn't exist yet.

What was more important was the layout of the house, the windows, and the ceiling heights, all being thoughtfully arranged to allow the right kinds of airflow in the right seasons.

Most modern houses in climates like seen in most of the US turn into an unbearable mold-farm of a wet oven if the AC is turned off over the Summer—they depend on AC or they start kinda decaying in place within a year, aside from being unbearable to enter on a hot day. A 1900-construction house that hasn't been updated to something like modern standards is far more comfortable to live in, in those circumstances.

(your broader point that some things in modern houses are better due to e.g. improving materials or engineering even as other things like framing have gotten worse due to worsening materials, I don't dispute, but modern house design as far as airtightness and insulation is very much a trade-off that leaves them dependent on AC in many—and, as the Earth warms, ever-more—climates, not strictly an improvement)

> wood and gas heating were cheap, and nobody had air conditioning because it didn't exist yet.

Gas heating in an old house for just one month uses more energy than all HVAC loads for a year in a similar sized new house. Where I live you must heat during that month of the pipes freeze/break so there is no getting around.

House design!

I live on the Potomac River in Virginia and am regularly shocked that the "come here" houses are what they left behind in northern Virginia and the Maryland suburbs. Houses are not designed for cross ventilation or with deep porches, and the like. I mean, all the cottages we visited on Cape Cod in my younger days were designed to have windows open and for the natural sea breeze to do the heavy lifting.

Hi neighbor! We don't get quite as much sea breeze here in the swamp.

There's a huge survivorship bias in the overall conversation about old things being better than new things.

The poorly made houses from 100 years ago just aren't there anymore.

The junk clothing from 50 years ago was thrown out.

"Anyone can build a bridge that doesn't fall down. Only engineers build bridges that only barely don't fall down."

Old buildings are often stronger because they didn’t have the modelling and precision manufacturing required to make them to an exact standard - instead they were overbuilt.

wrong, the hight of wood technology and understanding is behind us I have worked on many very old wooden buildings, dateing back to the mid 1700's and learned from the last carpenters and shipwrights, blacksmiths standing who carried those traditions, as things they learned as part of a greater whole. The understanding of how to keep structures dry, and also, how the inevitable condensation and leakage must be shed, is wraped up in tiny details, choices in wood species and specific grain orientations. If you are discussing, settler built homes, then the choices become based on pragmatism and litteral, life/death survival decisions, so things like, a stone fireplace, but @3' the chimney is chinked log or split wood, and I have seen wooden chimney foundations,made from truely massive, huen timbers, dovetailed together, 36" plus timbers,still supporting an in use kitchen apparatus, after 300 years. How is that possible?, simple, site selection, dry but not too dry, with a spring for a well close by, and if you dig into the details, there is plenty of history around choosing "dry wells" just for, basements and larders, non muddy spots for a house, etc. It is a mistake and a disservice to underestimate the sophistication of the many many, hidden details and the consious choices behind them, in our ancestors lives. seaweed, insulation, and "brushing" foundations every fall...... goes on and on

> That doesn't seem to jive with the way I live vs the literal log fucking cabin they lived in.

I propose that different goods have different trajectories. Lighting is better and cheaper than 100 years ago. Boots maybe aren't.

Maybe, but boots for sure are better and cheaper than 100 years ago. I think the only thing that makes this slightly confusing is that what were old mass-produced workwear have become limited-run fashion items, so looking at things like M1918 boots or cowboy boots and comparing to modern Red Wings or Luccheses it's tempting to say "Oh how much more expensive leather-soled brass-hardware hand-tanned full-grain leather boots are now", ignoring that Modern soldiers wear lightweight goretex running shoe-boots and farmers wear cozy neoprene pull-ons with anti-slip soles and carbon fibre toes, both of which cost half of inflation-adjusted prices of the objectively inferior boots of 1925.

You're right that modern work and military boots are generally better for their specific purpose -- they are certainly much lighter and usually cheaper than their older equivalents. They can also be more ergonomic and breathable while still being water-resistant due to modern materials and processes. But I will say that the durability of leather, metal-hardware, stitched/nailed-sole boots is unmatched. They can be re-soled and repaired unlike (most of) their modern counterparts, and will last generations if properly cared for. And there are still jobs out there for which they are the best option.

Go look up the origin of the word "shoddy" as it relates to the crappy field uniforms unscrupulous vendors sold to the Federal government during the Civil War.

That's interesting - I always assumed that "shoddy" and "slipshod" were related since their meanings are so similar, but apparently not!

Thanks for leading me to that definition.

> that the stuff built in the 1910s and 1920s was so much better.

Pre-war goods.

Is this true tho? It feels like a made-up reply and gaslighting. You demonstrated that you can say the opposite of what OP experiences. Now what?

It is unfair you're being downvoted by pointing out my anecdote. I argued the same point, too!

Here's another point: the Greeks used to complain about their students using punctuation & spaces in their scrolls, because it'd rot their pupils' brains; when novels (books!) became popular, academics thought it'd be the downfall of civilization.

New is different; different is bad.

There’s two things going on here:

1. You’re, rightfully, pointing out the “kids these days” bias that societies tend to have. Humans are risk-averse by nature and old things register in our monkey brains as better. This is all true.

2. Some goods are actually worse. Objectively. Clothing is one of them.

I buy and curate menswear from the 1960s and 1970s. Full suits, trousers, vests, trench coats, you know. The quality is just not comparable to modern menswear. Almost all of these items look brand new, and when pressed, better than new clothes made today.

They’re much sturdier, with no fraying or pilling. Most hold their shape to an unbelievable degree - one pressing session will easily last for 3 months of wear.

The viscose and polyester stuff is better, too, but naturally not as long-living as cotton or wool. But still, I have seen 60 year old polyester trousers with no pilling. Modern trousers can barely survive 3 washes without pilling.

As the supply chain strengthens and expands, things breaking becomes more and more acceptable.

A hundred years ago if a piece of clothing broke it meant you or a family member would repair it yourself. Fifty years ago you could buy a new one at a clothing store in a city. Now I can order one off Amazon that'll arrive at my doorstep in the morning.

Availability is less important for superfluous for unnecessary things, but for things people's lives depend on reliability was important in a way it isn't today. A coat wearing through or a knife breaking could mean death, a long time ago.Things were expected to be cared for and fixed for decades rather than replaced.

Shoddy things have always been around, but tolerance for them slowly yet persistently grows.