About the Ford Model T;
"The standard 4-seat open tourer of 1909 cost $850[31] (equivalent to $20,513 today), when competing cars often cost $2,000-$3,000 (equivalent to $48,267-$72,400 today);[citation needed] in 1913, the price dropped to $550 (equivalent to $12,067 today), and $440 in 1915 (equivalent to $9,431 today). Sales were 69,762 in 1911; 170,211 in 1912; 202,667 in 1913; 308,162 in 1914; and 501,462 in 1915.[26] In 1914, an assembly line worker could buy a Model T with four months' pay.[26]
By the 1920s, the price had fallen to $290 (equivalent to $3,258 today) because of increasing efficiencies of assembly line technique and volume. Henry employed vertical integration of the industries needed to create his cars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T
So, a typical consumer car of that time costs less than a typical car of today's time costs now. Modern cars appear to cost about the same as the typical car prior to Ford's assembly line with its worker efficiencies from higher tech methods. Of course, a turn-of-the-century car isn't really comparable to a modern car.
The average automotive assembly line worker made ~$1250/wk in 2008, so it still took about 4 months of work for an assembly line worker to purchase the car he assembled [average domestic car cost ~20,050 in 2006 ], so no change there except that the modern car is a nicer ride and which probably would have cost an arms+legs if taken back to 1914 owing to the fact that its, well, better than a Model T. But, oops.... a high tech car costs more on a low tech world.(?).
Again, this is because a high tech widget isn't directly comparable to a lo-tech widget unless they are essentially the same anyways, in which case it would cost less to manufacture. I suspect on a hi-tech world that the market for antique reproductions, which a hi-tech manufactured lo-tech widget would be, must be a niche market indeed.
A better comparison would be with the Tata Nano, both in cost (~$2000), performance and features. It also illustrates the folly of comparing a tech 15 air-raft directly against a tech 10 air-raft; they will have different features and performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano
An example of how the standard trade rules might not be as incorrect in some instances as people might imagine.
Let's say that there are 10 tech-10 widgets per dton and cost 'x' amount. A dton of tech-15 widgets cost more, but what if a tech-15 widget is more advanced and can do the same job in only 20% of the space; miniaturization can be a feature of hi-tech goods.... aka, there are 50 tech-15 widgets per dton. Wouldn't it be reasonable for 50 widgets to cost more than 10 widgets, even if the individual cost of each of the 50 widgets is less?
This is the sort of effect the old trade rules seek to model ( I assume ) and that the entire bit is abstracted for the sake of easy play as opposed to forcing the player to keep track of individual shipping forms and inventories. The loss of detail and accuracy is the cost that is paid for the sake of fast play.
"The standard 4-seat open tourer of 1909 cost $850[31] (equivalent to $20,513 today), when competing cars often cost $2,000-$3,000 (equivalent to $48,267-$72,400 today);[citation needed] in 1913, the price dropped to $550 (equivalent to $12,067 today), and $440 in 1915 (equivalent to $9,431 today). Sales were 69,762 in 1911; 170,211 in 1912; 202,667 in 1913; 308,162 in 1914; and 501,462 in 1915.[26] In 1914, an assembly line worker could buy a Model T with four months' pay.[26]
By the 1920s, the price had fallen to $290 (equivalent to $3,258 today) because of increasing efficiencies of assembly line technique and volume. Henry employed vertical integration of the industries needed to create his cars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T
So, a typical consumer car of that time costs less than a typical car of today's time costs now. Modern cars appear to cost about the same as the typical car prior to Ford's assembly line with its worker efficiencies from higher tech methods. Of course, a turn-of-the-century car isn't really comparable to a modern car.
The average automotive assembly line worker made ~$1250/wk in 2008, so it still took about 4 months of work for an assembly line worker to purchase the car he assembled [average domestic car cost ~20,050 in 2006 ], so no change there except that the modern car is a nicer ride and which probably would have cost an arms+legs if taken back to 1914 owing to the fact that its, well, better than a Model T. But, oops.... a high tech car costs more on a low tech world.(?).
Again, this is because a high tech widget isn't directly comparable to a lo-tech widget unless they are essentially the same anyways, in which case it would cost less to manufacture. I suspect on a hi-tech world that the market for antique reproductions, which a hi-tech manufactured lo-tech widget would be, must be a niche market indeed.
A better comparison would be with the Tata Nano, both in cost (~$2000), performance and features. It also illustrates the folly of comparing a tech 15 air-raft directly against a tech 10 air-raft; they will have different features and performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano
An example of how the standard trade rules might not be as incorrect in some instances as people might imagine.
Let's say that there are 10 tech-10 widgets per dton and cost 'x' amount. A dton of tech-15 widgets cost more, but what if a tech-15 widget is more advanced and can do the same job in only 20% of the space; miniaturization can be a feature of hi-tech goods.... aka, there are 50 tech-15 widgets per dton. Wouldn't it be reasonable for 50 widgets to cost more than 10 widgets, even if the individual cost of each of the 50 widgets is less?
This is the sort of effect the old trade rules seek to model ( I assume ) and that the entire bit is abstracted for the sake of easy play as opposed to forcing the player to keep track of individual shipping forms and inventories. The loss of detail and accuracy is the cost that is paid for the sake of fast play.
