>
Is that true or does it just seem that way?Definitely seems that way, but I don't think it's just an illusion.
Cheapest stuff is absolute garbage, arguably to the point you could consider it a waste of natural resources (for a few cents here and there, you could make things not break halfway their first use). What worries me though is that price isn't a reliable quality signal anymore - there's profit being made in selling cheap garbage at high prices, because many people are fooled into believing a more expensive good must be quality. Brands are no longer a quality signal either. Even ignoring that the market is currently DDoSed by throwaway "brands", even the proper ones don't mean much anymore. For instance, witness any discussion about white goods. Next to the people telling you which brands are historically quality ones, you'll find people reporting that recently, those quality brands started to cheap out on hardware and their products are no longer reliable or repairable.
Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that the market equilibrium for price-sensitive customers is complete garbage; some companies can survive on less price-sensitive customers, but I see a trend towards converting quality into better margins even there. It's true that we have more of everything now, but it also seems most of those things are short-lived, and increasingly shorter-lived. It would be fine if matter and energy were too cheap to meter, but they aren't - especially not if you factor in the environmental costs.