Tool prices over time. Cheaper or more expensive?

[dandan111]

It is not accurate to use the old minimum wage as a baseline for determining anything today. Minimum wage has gone through many changes, some increases and other times not keeping up with inflation. It has been accurately argued that minimum wage hurts low income people rather than helps them, therefore the different changes over time.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-How can minimum wage hurt a low income person? Should there not be a bottom?

 

[03protege]

From the many hours I have spent researching this topic, I have reached the conclusion that "back in the day" people were more willing to save up for one specific nice item and spend quite a bit of money (time at work) on said item. Compared to modern times where the average consumer mentality seems to be "I want everything super cheap, now".

I started a very small business doing a specific iron-working task consisting solely of Harbor Freight tools.

I'm a college student, couldn't get a loan (not that I would want to), and had very little to spend on tools. Had I waited till I could afford what I wanted it would have never happened. I have replaced some of the HF tools for either breaking or just being overly crude but I wouldn't have those nicer tools without starting small first.

I believe you have to walk before you can crawl and starting with a $99 HF arc welder made much more sense then dropping the money on the Millermatic I have now. Which I might add cost more than my original starting budget.

 

[kc-steve]

It is not accurate . . .

-How can minimum wage hurt a low income person? Should there not be a bottom?

In a healthy economy, usually only first time workers are paid minimum wages. In a bad economy those workers are usually replaced with more experienced workers.

Employers have to live within their budgets. When the government decides to raise minimum wage, then employers have no choice during bad economic times except to cut jobs. More often than not it will be the least experienced, minimum wage type jobs.

Steve

 

[PugetDude]

IMO, the game-changer was the introduction of Containerized Shipping. The cost of shipping relatively low-value goods (ie toolboxes) to far-away markets no longer exceeeded the value of the goods themselves. Once worldwide distribution became manageable, the next logical step to competition was shifting manufacturing to lower-cost labor markets. Simultaneous advances in the cost and availability of CAD design and CNC manufacturing processes has made almost everything in the world cheaper than what it used to be. (adjusted for inflation)

 

[dandan111]

Ok Steve . I don't agree but I do understand what you are saying.

 

[PugetDude]

In a healthy economy, usually only first time workers are paid minimum wages. In a bad economy those workers are usually replaced with more experienced workers.

Employers have to live within their budgets. When the government decides to raise minimum wage, then employers have no choice during bad economic times except to cut jobs. More often than not it will be the least experienced, minimum wage type jobs.

Steve

The Federal Minimum Wage has nothing to do with inflation, unemployment, economic growth, or market conditions. It has no baseline, and isn't tied to any measurable economic or employment metric. It's reactionary, knee-jerk politics, nothing more.

 

[jd_1138]

One thing to consider is ease of purchase. Back before eveyone sold everything, if you wanted something you had to go find a dealer and buy it there, or mail order it from places like sears. From what I hear, back around the 70's and early 80's, things like chain saws and pressure washers where quite pricey, but then again, you couldn't just go to walmart and buy one or run to lowes around the corner. Around my area, you went to an equipment dealer because they were the ones that sold equipment and the things related to equipment. Back then, black and decker made heavy duty tools, not store knock offs. Tools had more metal and less plastic, so cost was higher.

We've replaced quality with quantity. I was just a kid in the 1970's but things seemed more civilized back then. If you needed a part for something, you'd go to what seemed like a nice well-kept building with service trucks parked to the side. And there'd be a man there who would go in the back and come out with a USA made part for your product (washing machine, chain saw, whatever). And there'd be rows and rows of parts on metal shelving.

Nowadays, you buy equipment from surly teenagers at a big box store, and if something breaks, there are no parts stores that carry replacement parts. It's then a matter of looking on the internet and finding out that a replacement part costs as much as simply buying a brand new item. And of course, you buy the brand new item because something else is liable to break if you repair what you have.

 

[Packard V8]

I would bet money a wrench or ratchet from the 50's is much weaker and has a less durable finish than what is being marketed today.

You'd lose that money if the bet was on strength/durability/quality, win if on finish. I'm still using Blue Point combination wrenches from the '30s and '40s before the same forging die was changed to the Snap-on logo. For whatever reason, the techs of the day had to make do with first a relatively crude finish with no polish, then a semi-polished but still crude plating and finally incremental improvements to full-show-polish-show-chrome. None of the finish enhancements improved the durability or utility of the wrenches. Just because of personal preference, I buy the black industrial whenever I can.

jack vines

 

[rick carpenter]

Why would I substitute Snap-On (A Brand) for BeCu (A line under the Ping brand)?

Because some people want Snap On and BeCu Pings for the same reason.