The available quality of cloth did, in fact, diminish.

Hold up, why it changed matters to parent-poster's argument. Consider the difference between:

1. "The technology's capability was inferior to what humans were creating, therefore the quality of the output dropped."

2. "The costs of employing humans created a floor to the price/quality you could offer and still make a profit. Without the human labor, a lower-quality product became possible to offer."

The first is a question of engineering, the second is a question of economic choice and market-fit.

	▲	fwip 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Some of both. The fabric and clothes were worse, and cheaper. This put many traditional workers out of business, making actually good clothes scarcer, and eventually, more expensive than they previously were.

▲

ekianjo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not really. Polymers in clothes are everywhere and they have very désirable properties compared to pure cotton. Untreated cotton had many problems.

▲

trollbridge 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Materials other than cotton (like wool and leather) existed.

	▲	ekianjo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		yup, but polymers are much, much cheaper to produce. And some have properties that no natural fabric can offer.