You're comparing two completely different technologies though, that'd be like me complaining about how we're "so not-winning" with the size and price of SSDs.
Side Note: A 23" monitor purchase is not necessarily a "careless" one, for example the NEC model I use has one of the nicest feature sets for the price (fully adjustable base, IPS panel) but is only available in a 23.1" 1920x1080 version.
I'm not directly comparing two technologies, just comparing the rate of change in them. 1024 to 1080 is an increase of 56 vertical pixels.
That has to be one of the slowest changing metrics in modern computing.
What I meant by careless is that if you shop a typical desktop dcreen by price you will get 1920x1080 at 22/23/24 screens; you can buy 1900x1200 but you need to carefully find one because they are uncommon. Sure you can both 'care' and buy a screen like you have. But you can't not-care and have a chance at ending up with the higher resolution.
And you can get that res. for 24" £130, but a significant jump needs 27" or 30" screens - and 27" start with the same resolution! You need £730 for a 27" with higher resolution and £1200 for a 30". And that 6x multiplier gets you 1.5x more vertical pixels.
(How is that high-res small-pixel people 'winning'?)
Side Note: A 23" monitor purchase is not necessarily a "careless" one, for example the NEC model I use has one of the nicest feature sets for the price (fully adjustable base, IPS panel) but is only available in a 23.1" 1920x1080 version.