upvote

points

by tonymet15 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby criddell14 hours ago|
next
[-]
There might not be any trade-off in your example. You're assuming that a solid wood piece of furniture is superior to the flatpack alternative and you can't really say that without knowing what the consumer needs.

I have a little Ikea Lack table that holds my printer. I paid less than $10 for the table and I don't even think it's wood (cardboard maybe?). It's getting close to 20 years old and is in great shape.

reply
upvoteby tonymet13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"there's no aesthetic difference between this beautiful portrait and the contemporary pile of trash in the corner"
reply
upvoteby criddell13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not sure who you are quoting...

Of course there's an aesthetic difference.

reply
upvoteby tonymet13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That’s one of the tradeoffs. And an undervalued one.
reply
upvoteby criddell12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Absolutely. And it’s a trade off that doesn’t necessarily go against Ikea. Frankly, I think it’s one of the top reasons people choose Ikea furniture.

One of the genius things Ikea did was have little staged rooms in their store. They do a great job of these and lots of them look like rooms I’d want to spend time in. You see how that various pieces can be combined into something very inviting.

reply
upvoteby megaman82114 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Was there a time when an oak dresser was much cheaper in inflation adjusted dollars?

Furniture that lasts forever is an anti-feature for some. They want to change their furnishings about as often as cheap furniture lasts anyway. I mostly buy quality furniture, but sometimes I don't know what I really want and Ikea and Wayfair are great for that. Cheap enough to donate after I decide what quality piece I really want.

reply
upvoteby tonymet13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
yes.

And you're reversing cause and effect. Do the consumers prefer a disposable lifestyle or is that a cope?

reply