I think appliances cost a lot more, relatively, back in the day than they do today. If you were to spend the same % of income on appliances today, you’d get some pretty top-quality stuff. Still, I agree. I’ll happily pay a bit more for durability, and design that doesn’t have to accommodate a dozen trendy but completely unnecessary features.
I sometimes think about how things would have been different if we only rented our phones and computers from manufactures, instead of buying them, so that the incentivizes were to have us use them as long as possible before they needed to be replaced, instead of designing for planned obsolescence, like today.
The parallell for appliance manufacturers might be to think how it would be different if they were required to send a service person free of charge to look at and diagnose any appliance that stopped working in the first ten years. I’m happy to pay for the repairs themselves. I’m not so happy to pay for the inefficiency of the guy coming to my house some Tuesday between 8 and 2 to tell me he needs some $2 circuit breaker that he’ll have to order, and then come back next Wednesday between 10 and 4, etc. If the appliance manufacturer had to pay just for the service guy’s travel and diagnostic work, I think they might design appliances differently.
I with you 100%. But the reality is we live in a society where you/we work to make the “system” better, instead of the system making us better. Of course I’m talking about how mature capitalism works in the real world rather than the theory we turn into a myth? Is there a market demand for a basic car at $ 20,000? Sure, but like most products, you can give someone 80% of what you need in a product for cheap-and a thin margin and do businesses with a huge, but frugal consumer, or you add some sexy features that are extremely profitable to your basic product and make a lot of money. Which business plan is better for the stock holders? This is true across several sectors of our economy. You are (correctly) mistaking doing the right thing for the customer to maximizing profits for stock holders. Am I wrong?
You are not wrong. However, it doesn't have to be this way. There are thoughtful and clever ways to adapt the system to work. We must not just give up; we must not fall into a state of learned helplessness. We must work to repair it. I have a piece coming out next week that will discuss this in more depth.
In this case I don't think it's a learned helplessness that is self induced, but is systemic and more institutionalized than learned by current market realities. (Although cars do tend to last longer. I just got rid of my Corolla. Had it for 14 years and put 254,000 miles on it...so when it comes to a consumer's learned helplessness--that ain't me.)
I can see some niche areas where this could happen--no frills products, but for the most part consumer products are dominated by a few players with the same approach--maximize profits, through planned obsolescence or, in the case on good long lasting products like a smart phone, create the marketing fear of losing out if you don't buy the next best things.
I'm curious to see what you come up with. I will preemptively say that I don't think individual behavior has much ability to change this reality. UNLESS you have some radical suggestions that are beyond consumer behavior and so-called free market principles (which I submit do not truly exist own many cases--which explains why no competitors are offering a no frills product-- and then I get all liberal and progressive with my ideas.)
Agreed! Our Samsung fridge has had various issues despite being only a decade old. Meanwhile my sister has a 70-year old fridge in her garage that runs flawlessly. And I am with you on cars. The more amenities they add, the higher the cost of purchase and maintenance---so many points of failure.
Your wish has been granted.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/2027-slate-truck-electric-first-look-review
I think appliances cost a lot more, relatively, back in the day than they do today. If you were to spend the same % of income on appliances today, you’d get some pretty top-quality stuff. Still, I agree. I’ll happily pay a bit more for durability, and design that doesn’t have to accommodate a dozen trendy but completely unnecessary features.
I sometimes think about how things would have been different if we only rented our phones and computers from manufactures, instead of buying them, so that the incentivizes were to have us use them as long as possible before they needed to be replaced, instead of designing for planned obsolescence, like today.
The parallell for appliance manufacturers might be to think how it would be different if they were required to send a service person free of charge to look at and diagnose any appliance that stopped working in the first ten years. I’m happy to pay for the repairs themselves. I’m not so happy to pay for the inefficiency of the guy coming to my house some Tuesday between 8 and 2 to tell me he needs some $2 circuit breaker that he’ll have to order, and then come back next Wednesday between 10 and 4, etc. If the appliance manufacturer had to pay just for the service guy’s travel and diagnostic work, I think they might design appliances differently.
I with you 100%. But the reality is we live in a society where you/we work to make the “system” better, instead of the system making us better. Of course I’m talking about how mature capitalism works in the real world rather than the theory we turn into a myth? Is there a market demand for a basic car at $ 20,000? Sure, but like most products, you can give someone 80% of what you need in a product for cheap-and a thin margin and do businesses with a huge, but frugal consumer, or you add some sexy features that are extremely profitable to your basic product and make a lot of money. Which business plan is better for the stock holders? This is true across several sectors of our economy. You are (correctly) mistaking doing the right thing for the customer to maximizing profits for stock holders. Am I wrong?
You are not wrong. However, it doesn't have to be this way. There are thoughtful and clever ways to adapt the system to work. We must not just give up; we must not fall into a state of learned helplessness. We must work to repair it. I have a piece coming out next week that will discuss this in more depth.
In this case I don't think it's a learned helplessness that is self induced, but is systemic and more institutionalized than learned by current market realities. (Although cars do tend to last longer. I just got rid of my Corolla. Had it for 14 years and put 254,000 miles on it...so when it comes to a consumer's learned helplessness--that ain't me.)
I can see some niche areas where this could happen--no frills products, but for the most part consumer products are dominated by a few players with the same approach--maximize profits, through planned obsolescence or, in the case on good long lasting products like a smart phone, create the marketing fear of losing out if you don't buy the next best things.
I'm curious to see what you come up with. I will preemptively say that I don't think individual behavior has much ability to change this reality. UNLESS you have some radical suggestions that are beyond consumer behavior and so-called free market principles (which I submit do not truly exist own many cases--which explains why no competitors are offering a no frills product-- and then I get all liberal and progressive with my ideas.)
Agreed! Our Samsung fridge has had various issues despite being only a decade old. Meanwhile my sister has a 70-year old fridge in her garage that runs flawlessly. And I am with you on cars. The more amenities they add, the higher the cost of purchase and maintenance---so many points of failure.