The Dark Ages of Commerce

The age of "mass" represents a dark age in the history of commerce.   Mass production, mass consumption, and mass everything have not resulted in a particularly pleasant era in which to be a consumer (or producer, for that manner).   That's not to say this period of time has not been beneficial - the ready availability of cheap goods has done much to raise the standard of living from what it had previously been, in a strictly material sense.

But that's much like saying the animals in a circus are better off than they were in the wild: they have been better fed and cared for, promoting their health and extending their lifespan, but have given up much in exchange.   In the same way, human beings in their roles as producer and consumer have benefitted in a material sense by the age of mass-everything and, quantitatively, life in the standard, commoditized market of the past few centuries has provided more material wealth, but at the cost of depersonalization and, to some degree, dehumanization.

Mass Production

Individuals in a market trade the goods they produce for the goods they consume.  This is as true in the present world as it has even been, since before history and civilization itself, individuals have produced goods for consumption, and traded their output with others who had things that they preferred to their own product.

The problem, initially, was that individuals are not particularly good at everything, but only at a few things: a farmer was effective and efficient at producing quality food, but not at weaving quality cloth or sewing quality clothing - for this, he would trade his food product to someone else who was more adept at producing clothing.    As this progressed, work became more specialized: the producer of clothing became a tailor who devoted significant time to a specific product and developed proficiency in producing it with unprecedented quality.

But then the tailor became a factory worker who performed an even smaller part of the work; hence, the modern profession of the sweat-shop laborer who merely sews one seam of a garment, over and over.   So instead of making clothing, the worker spends years or decades of her life sewing the inseam of a pair of trousers, never handling the finished product nor ever coming face-to-face with the customer who would benefit from her work.

The benefit of this level of specialization is efficiency and effectiveness in performing one component task in the production of a standardized product.  The factory worker can sew her single seam quickly and efficiently, and when teamed together in an assembly-line, a few dozen individuals performing minute tasks can generate a higher level of output than the same number of people doing the whole task.   They produce an amazing amount of clothing, which means that there is more clothing available more cheaply to the mass market, and everyone is happy in the benefits they receive as consumers, though the satisfaction of their work in their role as producers is considerably diminished.

Mass Consumption

However, we are not entirely cheery in our roles as consumers, as what we get for out money is seldom satisfactory.    The counterargument that the consumer is in control of quality is largely a myth: buying decisions are limited to the range of products available - i.e., the fact that someone purchases an item doesn't mean they're entirely happy with it, but merely that it was the best choice among undesirable or imperfect alternatives.

And given that efficiency, not quality, is the goal of mass productions, producers compromise greatly on the quality of goods: to produce efficiently means streamlining the production process to eliminate any unnecessary task to include any unnecessary feature and to reduce the finished goods to the lowest level that will be acceptable to consumers. In so doing, a great deal of quality has been sacrificed.

In the present day more people can afford furniture, but mass-produced furniture is cheap particle board; more people can afford clothing, but mass-produced clothing lacks durability; more people can afford food, but mass-produced food is unpleasant and often unhealthy.  Granted, goods produced by competent artisans and craftsmen are still available, but outlandishly expensive by comparison.

So consumers of the mass age have to choose among cheap and low-quality goods for the majority of their purchases, those that will imperfectly address their needs that represent the best among cheap and shoddy options that they are presented by mass producers, with the occasional option to splurge on items of quality now and then, and that craftsmanship has not been entirely reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Waiting for Dawn

We are still to a large degree living in the dark ages of commerce: working monotonous and unfulfilling jobs to earn money that we will spend on cheap and shabby goods.   And while it cannot be denied that everyone has more in a quantitative sense, one must wonder whether the price has been paid out of our satisfaction and our basic human dignity.

There are some signs that the culture is evolving toward the next phase in our economic evolution.  While it is unlikely that we will return to the age of mercantilism, the "mass" market provides us with greater choices in terms of our employment options as producers and our purchasing options as consumers, and some individuals are showing signs of considering their quality of life in the choices they are making.

As consumers, there remains the possibility of making the choice to pay more for better quality, and the move away from the cheapest alternatives is causing producers to rethink their profit models.   As producers, there remains the possibility to accept less pay for more fulfilling work, and it has already been shown by satisfaction surveys that employees are amenable to this compromise.

It is, as in many instances, a delicate balance: to fulfill our need for the basic necessities of life with the most economical alternative, or to fulfill our need to have quality in life by choosing an alternative that is less efficient but more satisfactory - and even, in rare instances, quite pleasant.

So it will be interesting to see, in the next few decades, how the world of commerce evolves, and the degree to which the choices people make in regard to their production and consumption influence the general welfare and the cultural environment.   I don't believe that anyone can state with confidence whether things will move in one direction or the other, or whether there will be any motion at all - but it does seem inevitable that a change of some manner will occur.