The public often doesn't care about things getting cheaper. They care about things getting more expensive. Those in finance care about things getting cheaper -- to produce. Not to sell. They increase the final margins by continually cost reducing production, while the actual buying public is oblivious until they experience the new product, of which it's production they had no say in. The public reacts to prices reducing by single digit percentages as much as they do the price staying the same, which is to say not at all.
The exception to "people don't want cheaper" is new technology that is conforming production to economies of scale rather than artisan batches as it matures and understanding of production grows. People wanted the prices of 3D printers to come down, and they did as the technology matured. Same with lithium-ion batteries, carbon fiber sheeting, LEDs, and wireless digital transmissions. But for mature technology like a mechanical pencil? No. The price of something like a mechanical pencil was already low enough that reducing the cost further is a detriment to the economy and is not noticed by the end customer. Diminishing returns kick in very very early for the end customer.
For the workers the reduced cost of production to the point of affordability is a boon, as it means more people buy the product, necessitating increased production and thus the increased size of other industries to feed production and an increase in the number of employees. Yet within recent decades the increased profits never go to the employees or taxes. The viewpoint of the executives goes directly against that, since their job isn't to allocate or use the income, only accrue more of it.
There's a balancing act to stay around the limit of "affordable" without being "cheap." Modern first world countries began shifting into services economies in the 1990s because we severely screwed that balance up starting in the late 1970s. The inflation that we've experienced since 1978 is the very aggressive symptom of failing to maintain that balance.
The exception to "people don't want cheaper" is new technology that is conforming production to economies of scale rather than artisan batches as it matures and understanding of production grows. People wanted the prices of 3D printers to come down, and they did as the technology matured. Same with lithium-ion batteries, carbon fiber sheeting, LEDs, and wireless digital transmissions. But for mature technology like a mechanical pencil? No. The price of something like a mechanical pencil was already low enough that reducing the cost further is a detriment to the economy and is not noticed by the end customer. Diminishing returns kick in very very early for the end customer.
For the workers the reduced cost of production to the point of affordability is a boon, as it means more people buy the product, necessitating increased production and thus the increased size of other industries to feed production and an increase in the number of employees. Yet within recent decades the increased profits never go to the employees or taxes. The viewpoint of the executives goes directly against that, since their job isn't to allocate or use the income, only accrue more of it.
There's a balancing act to stay around the limit of "affordable" without being "cheap." Modern first world countries began shifting into services economies in the 1990s because we severely screwed that balance up starting in the late 1970s. The inflation that we've experienced since 1978 is the very aggressive symptom of failing to maintain that balance.