Household Appliances Were Cheaper 40 Years Ago—The Truth About Economic Globalization & “Cheap Goods”
What do flat-earthers and economists have in common?
They both mistake their models for reality. They confuse what ought to be with what is.
And that’s why economists are often wrong—even when they all agree, like when it comes to global free trade.
Ask 10 economists about global free trade, and 10 will say it’s good. Always good.
It’s one of the few things economists agree on.
Why?
The logic’s clean: freer trade allows greater specialization, and therefore the maximization of comparative advantage. That means cheaper, and better stuff—in theory.
But are they right? Has freer trade with the developing world, with countries like China and Mexico, benefited American consumers?
No.
There are lots of reasons why economic globalization doesn’t work, but in this article, we’re going to look specifically at the cost of household appliances, since they’re some of the biggest purchases people make in their lives.
Also, appliances haven’t changed that much—a dryer from 1976 will get your clothes just as dry as one from 2017. This means we can compare the products more-or-less directly.
The data shows that freer trade, and offshoring hasn’t made household appliances cheaper.
See for yourself:

Instead, when you account for product quality and inflation (to say nothing of the environmental cost of offshoring to China), household appliances are more expensive today than they were 40 years ago. Much more expensive.
Free traders promised cheaper goods. They didn’t deliver.
Modern Appliances Don’t Last As Long As They Used To: This Means You Have To Buy Them More Often

The main reason why household appliances, like clothes washers and dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers, and ovens, are more expensive today than they were 40 years ago is because they don’t last as long.
They’re junk.
Typically, modern appliances last about 10-13 years. That’s their estimated lifespan.
But sadly, many don’t even make it that long.
According to a 2013 survey by Consumer Reports, as reported by the Columbus Dispatch, nearly 1 in 3 side-by-side refrigerators broke within 4 years. Likewise, almost 1 in 4 washing machines, 1 in 5 dishwashers failed in the same period.
Overall, modern appliances are junk—and there’re lots of lemons in the bunch.
This is also reflected in company warranties: 40 years ago, it wasn’t uncommon to have decade-long manufacturers warranties.
Now they’re usually 1-2 year warranties—and the best you’ll get is 5.
Even the manufacturers know their products are crap, otherwise they’d guarantee them, like they used to.
Now let’s compare this to products made prior to the waves of offshoring in the late 1980s.

According to Ryan Finlay, an entrepreneur who specializes in antique appliances, old appliances generally lasted 25-30 years, and often didn’t need servicing until the 15 year mark.
This is corroborated when you look at manufacturer’s warranties, and listen to the evidence presented by other industry specialists.
Essentially, older household appliances lasted 2-3 times as long as modern appliances.
Not only that, there were fewer lemons, and they lasted longer without requiring servicing—not to mention that they could be serviced, most modern appliances can’t be repaired because they don’t sell individual parts. But that’s a different story.
When product quality is accounted for, freer trade has not made appliances cheaper.
In fact, it’s done the opposite—low quality products and parts made in the developing world have hurt American consumers.
Why Are Modern Appliances Junk?
We have better technology and 40 more years of practice making home appliances under our belt. Theoretically, we should be building cheap, amazing ovens, refrigerators, and dishwashers.
And yet, there’s no question that modern appliances don’t last as long as they used to—what gives?
Why don’t they make ’em like they used to?
Two potential reasons:
1. Although most appliances are assembled in America, their “made in America” stickers are totally worthless.
In reality, the majority of their integral components are made abroad, in countries like China or Mexico, and imported for assembly in the US.
And frankly, the parts are junk. They’re garbage.
You don’t have the same level of quality control when you offshore your production—remember when the latest and greatest generation of Apple iPhones bent in your pocket?
Or how about all the problems Boeing had with their aircraft?
Communicating with people that speak English is hard enough—now try teaching Chinese farmhands who’ve never used a refrigerator before to build one from scratch.
It’s not that easy.
Here’s a specific example: in clothes washers, the part that inevitably fails first is the motor. The motors are made in China—or at least most of their component pieces are from China.
If they were made in America like they used to, they’d probably be lasting for 30 years—like they used to.
2. The only other reasonable option is that the manufacturers have banded together to build products that are designed to fail sooner, thereby forcing people to buy more appliances.
Maybe.
But all it takes is for one company to buck the trend and expose the others, and they’d win a 100% market share.
People aren’t good at keeping secrets, nor do pacts with thieves last long.
Therefore, the deteriorating quality in home appliances is probably mostly because of offshoring.
Some Examples of the Deteriorating Quality of Home Appliances
Let’s spend a little more time on this, just out of interest, before getting to the cost differences.
Here’s a good example of how modern appliances are worse than those made decades ago, according to Ryan Finlay:
Ryan notes that integral parts, like the motors imported from China, are the first to fail.
No surprise there.
But there’s more to it than that—there are indeed design flaws in modern home appliances that used to be consciously avoided.
For example, metal surfaces use
d to be dipped in paint, which ensured that a thick, even coat was applied to the part—and that every nook and cranny was filled.
Now, they spray-paint appliances with much thinner coats. This leads to poor coverage at difficult angles (where the metal folds), and it’s also easier to scratch.
This causes modern appliances to rust much easier and sooner than they used to.
Furthermore, the shift to plastics in lower-end appliances has been a disaster in terms of quality. Plastic parts break much easier from wear and tear, because plastic isn’t as durable as metal. Go figure.
And even when they use metal, they use less of it.
Overall, home appliances just don’t last as long as they used to, because of poor-quality foreign-made parts, and inherent design flaws, designed to cut costs.
Household Appliances Are More Expensive Today Than 40 Years Ago
Now for the good stuff.
Let’s look at the retail price of major household appliances historically, and compare them to retail prices in 2017.
Historical prices are drawn from the People’s History, while modern costs were estimated given the average retail prices of the appliance from Best Buy and Sears.
Finally, inflation was calculated using Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
1. Clothes Washer-Dryer Combo: $1,790 in 1976; $2,000-$3,000 in 2017

In 1976, you could buy an ordinary clothes dryer for $219, and a washer for $199.
Adjusted for inflation, the dryer cost $938.36 in 2017 currency.
The washer cost $852.66.
Comparable washers and dryers today start at around $500 each, and work their way up to $1000 for high-end stuff.
On the surface, it looks like washers and dryers are cheaper today than in 1976—they’re almost half price.
I guess NAFTA was a good idea after all!
But not too fast.
Remember, we also have to account for the product’s lifespan—which is way shorter today.
For example, you could reasonably expect your washer from 1976 to last 2-3 times longer than one from 2017—and it probably had a 5-10 year warranty, as opposed to the 1-2 year warranty you’d get today.
That means that over a 30 year period starting in 1976, you’d probably only need to buy the 1 washer and dryer; but in 2017, you’ll buy 2 or 3 over the same time.
Once we account for this fact, the real cost of a washer in 2017 isn’t $500, it’s $1,000 to $1,500.
That means washers and dryers haven’t gone down in price. They’ve gone up.
2. Side-By-Side Refrigerator: $3,502 in 1968; $4,000-$6,000 in 2017
In 1968 a side-by-side refrigerator cost $499.95, which equates to $3,502 in 2017 dollars.
That’s pretty expensive.
However, comparable products today start at $1,200 minimum, while the average price for bestselling models is around $2,000.
Given that you’d need to buy modern refrigerators in the same time, this means that the true cost over the product’s lifetime would be $4,000 to $6,000.
Doesn’t look like such a good deal now, does it?
3. Dishwasher: $739 in 1980; $1,000-$1,500 in 2017
In 1980 you could buy a standard under-the-counter dishwasher for $249.95 retail.
This works out to $739.54 in 2017 dollars.
Frankly, this isn’t even expensive in modern dollars, since dishwashers usually retail somewhere between $500 to $1,000 in 2017.
But even if we take the lowest price, dishwashers are still a bad bargain compared to what they were.
4. Oven & Over-the-Range Microwave: $2,111 in 1984; $2,400-$3,600 in 2017
In 1984 you could buy a decent oven and stove set, with an over-the-range microwave for $899.
In 2017 dollars, that works out to $2,111. Pretty expensive.
If you wanted something similar today, the oven would cost anywhere between $600 and $1,300, and $200-300 for the microwave.
If we took a middle-of-the-road modern set, it would run about $1,200.
And finally, when accounting for lifespan, a modern oven and microwave set would probably run $2,400 to $3,600.
Household Appliances Cost More Today Than They Did 40 Years Ago—Free Trade Didn’t Work
Trade with China was supposed to improve our quality of life. NAFTA too.
Free trade was supposed to make consumer goods cheaper.
But it didn’t—at least not for the important stuff.
Instead, we sacrificed our industries and jobs in exchange for chimeras and ghosts—the goods weren’t cheaper in the long run, it just seemed that way because the costs were hidden.
But when you import junk, you end up paying for it. The piper must be paid.
I want to hammer this point home: aside from romance, there are very few win-wins in life. Sure we can offshore our factories to China and get our appliances for half price—but the quality isn’t the same, and we just end up buying the same appliance 3 times.
It ends up costing consumers more (while fattening up the larders of multinationals).
And when the quality eventually improves, the prices go up: that’s what happened with Japanese products.
Remember when stuff from Japan was cheap but bad? Now it’s expensive but good—there is no such thing as a free lunch.
And people wonder why the middle class is shrinking. This is why: hidden costs and stupid people running the show.
Help fix the economy, and do yourself a favor. Buy American.

Leave a Reply
12 Comments on "Household Appliances Were Cheaper 40 Years Ago—We’re Getting Ripped Off"
The argument that household appliances were cheaper in the past in this article seems to rely on the 2.5x multiplier you apply to modern prices to account for supposed shorter lifespan. It’s an interesting factor to consider, but it wasn’t clear from the article how robustly justified (if any) that number is.
I dislike planned obsolescence and the waste of disposable and non-repairable products as much as anyone, but I am not convinced of the central argument you are trying to make that household appliances were cheaper in the past.
I am not sure if there is an easy way to measure this and compare directly. It is not perfect, but one way might be to look at the percentages of households who own these appliances. Some, like the refrigerator and stove were already nearly ubiquitous in US households by the 60s, but others mentioned like washing machine, clothes dryer, and microwave, saw increased prevalence through recent decades. If they were in fact getting more expensive in “real” terms, would we be seeing increased consumption? (Relying on graph by Nicholas Felton titled “Consumption Spreads Faster Today”)
The other counter argument is more hypothetical: Given the choice between having a 1960s model appliance, or one designed and built today (either brand new), I would choose the latter.
I buy that they used to last much longer, simply because they were built to last, literally. The chassis were designed so that they could be repaired, they had modable components, and they used to stock repair parts. They don’t anymore, you can’t get spare parts, and even if you did, the chassis will rust away anyways.
There’s just no comparing old-fashioned American craftsmanship with this modern garbage. The paint is so thin on modern appliances that they get scratched by friggin fridge magnets, and this leads to lots of rust, especially in the back and areas where you can’t see. Just take a peek around the back of a modern fridge and one from the 1970s: new one will have rust spots after 2-3 years, old one might not have rust after 50.
Not only that, new appliances often have mottled siding, which traps in dust and grit, which allows moisture to build up and rust to form.. In this case, it’s definitely a design failure that wasn’t present in older models.
Although I’d also rather have something new, just because of the energy savings. Power’s a lot more than it used to be, so that’s not something they used to think about.
Fair points.
I’ll admit, I’m not myself an expert on the lifespan of appliances, but I’m confident in my research: both industry experts and an analysis of warranties seem to indicate that product lifespans were quite a bit longer “back in the good old days.”
You do bring up an interesting point retarding the prevalence of appliances that I didn’t address, but I think it’s worth a brief discussion:
What you said is true: while stoves & refrigerators were ubiquitous, washing machines & the rest were not. And it’s a fair point: if they’re getting more expensive, why would more people have them?
I have 3 points to make about that:
1) The cost analysis was done over the product’s lifetime (30 years), but you’ll notice that the cost of getting an appliance for the 1st time is actually cheaper today—the cost comes in because you need to replace it multiple times.
This means the barrier to owning an appliance is lower, but it’s a worse deal in the long run.
It’s kind of like leasing a car: sure more people have access to cars, but it’s impoverishing the working class in the long run.
2) Consider the debt-load of the average American in the 1970s and today. It’s not even close. Most Americans are consuming more today because they’re financing their lifestyle on debt, not because they’re making more.
In fact, wages, in real terms, have actually gone down, as has household discretionary spending. You can read more about that here:
https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2016/12/06/9-charts/
3) The appliances are cheaper in the short term (for 1st time buyers) because of the diminished quality: coats of paint are thinner, washers & moving parts aren’t as substantial (less metal) and wear out easier, the switch to plastics has made them cheaper to make, but again, diminished their lifespan etc.
All signs point to the fact that they’re nominally cheaper in the short term, not because offshoring itself has made them cheaper, but because the quality is so much lower.
You get what you pay for: if the products from China are cheap, they’re cheap for a reason, sadly.
I don’t think you are taking into account all factors that can affect cost, such as government regulation, but that are unrelated to free trade. For example, the Department of Energy’s Appliance and Equipment Standards Program claims on its website, “The Building Technologies Office (BTO) implements minimum energy conservation standards for more than 60 categories of appliances and equipment. As a result of these standards, American consumers saved $63 billion on their utility bills in 2015 alone. Since 2009, BTO has issued 44 new or updated standards, which are projected to save consumers $550 billion off their utility bills through 2030. By 2030, cumulative operating cost savings from all standards in effect since 1987 will reach nearly $2 trillion. Products covered by standards represent about 90% of home energy use, 60% of commercial building use, and 30% of industrial energy use.” The claims about energy savings may or may not be true, but what is definitely true is that manufacturers have been forced to incorporate features into appliances that once were not required, raising costs.
Hi there. The energy savings is a good point.
Old machines were power-hungry, and in today’s market, aren’t terribly economical.
But I think it’s worth considering 2 factors here:
1) Power used to be dirt cheap, so no one was really concerned with power costs. Why? The grid was underpinned by coal & nuclear power.
Now that we’re being forced to switch to “green energy”, power costs are soaring. For example, it’s so bad that in Ontario, Canada, the government’s imposing price controls on power:
https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/05/11/ontario-electricity-price-controls/
The wind generators are just so expensive that regular people can’t afford power: it’s doubled in price in the last decade.
2) The savings on power would’ve happened regardless of whether or not the component parts were made in America or China.
Now, you could make the argument that the price of making the machinery more energy efficient was so costly that it overwhelmed the savings we got from offshoring to China, but I don’t think that holds water when we look at historical trends.
Between 1950 and 1980 technology, measured in terms of productivity, improved at a more rapid rate than it did from 1980-2016, believe it or not:
https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/04/21/automation-job-loss/
And yet the price of goods fell in real terms during this period.
Basically, technology is an exogenous condition: it would’ve gotten better regardless of where the products were made—and this both improves product quality, and makes them cheaper to manufacture.
My hunch is that this trend would’ve continued if we didn’t offshore products.
Offshoring has given us false savings: the factories in China are using dated industrial processes that are only made possible because of the dirt-cheap labor—if the factories remained in America, we would’ve continued to streamline them & automate.
Offshoring stymied this natural process, and therefore eroded the quality of goods, at a higher long-term price.
My point is that we shouldn’t meddle with complex systems because a few globalist economists think it might be a good idea on paper, and we shouldn’t try to fix something that isn’t broken, which was the case with the US economy.
History is smarter than man.
Hey Spencer,
I think this was really great analysis. There is one piece of the puzzle you should include, or go out of your way to point out if it was already included in your calculations; particularly if we are going to reference economic theory, and that is that inflation does not account for technological advancements. And while you say “comparable” when speaking about refrigerators for instance, it isn’t clear from your article how thoroughly each feature was compared such as better insulation standards and resulting interior/exterior size ratios, etc. Same for all the appliances. Washers and driers have electric control panels with far more options than mechanical panels from decades ago. My apologies if you did go out of your way to include that in your calculations, but if you did, you should make it absolutely clear.
Hi there, thanks for the comment.
I agree, I should’ve included something on that.
The reason I originally didn’t include the value of technological advancement is because it’s what’s called an “exogenous condition”—it’s beyond the scope of conventional economic models.
Basically, we would’ve developed better technology regardless of whether or not production of said appliances stayed in the US, or moved abroad. So from that standpoint, it’s a non-issue.
Likewise, better technology doesn’t increase price in the long run, it makes things cheaper. So to say that “we’re paying more because the technology is better” is a somewhat misguided argument.
For example, if we apply this logic to the industrial revolution, we should’ve seen costs increase because the industrial products were of better quality than what came before. But that didn’t happen, instead, they came down in cost.
Technology shifts the economic paradigm, and makes things cheaper in the long run (because we become more productive). In the case of appliances here, rather than seeing prices decline, we’ve seen them increase (or at the very least, stagnate). Either way, something’s very wrong.
While I agree that in general appliances do not last as long as they used to, this article is pretty off in its pricing. For example, the author uses $500 for the entry price point for a washer and dryer. While front load washers typically start at this price point, a top load washing machine and matching dryer (which would be the actual accurate comparison to an older model) start at $299.
The outline of an accurate article would look like:
Appliances are cheaper than they used to be. They provide more features than old machines while offering better performance and while using less energy. As a result, they do not last as long.
The reasoning of this article is specious at best as the pricing used in examples for new appliances is inflated.
No, appliances do not last as long as they used to. But also, appliances are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than they used to be. Over 30 years, cost of ownership will be similar.
Hi bud, the prices will always be a source of contention, because you can always find deals, or exceptions to the rules etc.
I did my best to be fair: prices come from Sears & Best Buy catalogs, and reflect their average retail price for “bestselling” models.
They’re not the cheapest I could possibly find, because that wouldn’t be a fair comparison: I went with middle-of-the-road retail prices for the previous decades, so that’s what I did for 2017.
In terms of better technology, yes it’s improved. But it would’ve improved regardless of whether the product was made in America or Bangladesh. Therefore, it’s a fairly irrelevant factor to consider.
My point is that we could’ve had the better technology, but avoided the poor-quality offshored components that have dramatically undermined the lifespan of our products. It isn’t a trade-off we needed to make. The point is to compare where we are now, with where we could’ve been.
In that sense, I think it’s quite clear we’re behind.
And of course, if you agree with the premise that appliances don’t last as long as they used to, it’s a tough case to make that appliances are
“cheaper” over their lifespan today.
For example, even if we go with your $299 price for the washer, the prices are still equal when accounting for inflation. At this point you’re only argument is that: well, the product is better because of technology; to which I’d respond, technology would’ve improved regardless.
Remember, technological growth brings prices down over time. And if it’s improved as much as you say, this should be reflected in the price. But it’s not, and that’s the problem.
Cheers
UNBELIEVABLE. You guys attack Ben Shapiro, and then pull this?
> Has freer trade with the developing world, with countries like China
> and Mexico, benefited American consumers?
FREER trade is NOT FREE trade.
Wow, what is your degree? BS in Straw Man with a Minor in argumentum ad passiones? No doubt you were in the Equivocation club, as Sergeant at Arms. Or was that the Disjunctafiers club?
Unreal.
Law, just like Ben Shapiro. My background’s in finance and history.
First, free trade is a domain-specific theory, predicated upon something called domestic capital immobility. You can read more about that here:
https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2016/12/13/problems-with-comparative-advantage/
Bottom line, it doesn’t always apply. In practice, free trade deals between asymmetrical partners have hurt America.
There are lots of reasons, some of where are explained here:
https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2016/12/28/free-trade-doesnt-work/
But most importantly, the theory underpinning economic liberalism, and global free trade as a whole, is based upon a faulty understanding of
1) Human nature, which you can read about in the critiques of Daniel Kahneman & Nassim Taleb, and
2) A faulty understanding of how economic growth actually happens—it has nothing to do with maximizing efficiency, and everything to do with improving technology.
https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/01/09/economic-growth/
Given that, it’s not at all surprising that free trade has undermined America’s quality of life—reality is different than theory.
Cheers.
I’m with Ann Coulter on this one: I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the same people pushing for free trade with the 3rd world are the same people pushing open borders and amnesty.
Not that I think Shapiro himself supports open borders, but most of them do. Shapiro just seems to rely on the “experts” when it comes to economics, because he doesn’t know much about it himself (which he freely admits).
In doing so, he’s falling prey to the same fallacy that he accuses the left of falling for: expert worship. Leftists say they don’t know much about gender science, so they trust the “experts”, ie PhD’s in transgender dance.
Is that really any different than Shapiro trusting in professional economists, rather than actual businessmen, or looking into the data himself? I don’t think so: businessmen from Trump to Buffet all say free trade is killing American industries and jobs, which is clearly reflected in the actual unemployment numbers.
Economists don’t have any skin in the game: there’s a reason that every libertarian thinker is also employed in a university, rather than the private industry: they can’t hack it, anymore than can Marxists.
University is where radicals go, whether they’re Marxists or libertarians. Economic liberalism, just like every other form of liberalism, is cancer.