There are choices between high and low quality based on price, but you're ignoring the effect of changes over time. As Hayek and others have explained, typically something new and experimental will only be available to the rich because it will initially be expensively produced in low quantities, but as it catches on innovation brings the price down to the masses. There are dozens of "low-quality" goods (relative to today's "high-quality" versions) enjoyed by the poor today that would have been considered "high-quality" relative to the versions of those same products enjoyed only by the rich a few decades ago (ex. cell phones, refrigerators, etc). Although these trends may be more easily seen in products than in services/public goods like education.
That misses the point. Of course a refrigerator from today has more functionality built to it than refrigerator from 50 years ago. Of course we can build it much cheaper. The question, do we want to?
There is also Akerlof, who also won the "Nobel Prize". When people cannot recognize quality, they cannot buy it. Sure, every fool can compare "features". So when the producer is faced with a choice, build it 10% cheaper for half the quality, what do you think he is going to do? Most people won't know until it breaks.
It's also win for the producer. He can make two lines - one "consumer" line with half the quality, and the other "professional" line with the right quality, but two times as expensive. That's how modern market segmentation works.
