Alex Tabarrok over at the Marginal Revolution blog has an interesting item that pushes back against the idea that the items we buy, such as clothes and household appliances such as electric toasters, fridges and vacuum cleaners, don’t last as long and that is something terrible and a fault of modern capitalism, yadda-yadda.
He concludes: “appliance durability hasn’t collapsed—it’s evolved to meet consumer demand. We’re not being ripped off. We are getting better products at better prices. Rising incomes have simply redefined what “better” means.”
One part of it, as Tabarrok said, is that the “Baumol Effect” shows that the cost of repairing stuff rises vs the cost of buying that new toaster, flat-screen TV or whatever. And that seems to make sense. I’ve also noticed with a lot of modern tech, it is less reparable. That is partly, I think, a function of moving to a digital from analogue world. I am just about old enough to remember how to service my first car, including changing the spark plugs on the engine, etc. Nowadays, the chance of maintaining a modern car engine rank alongside how I’d fix the human brain.
The MR post also cites this excellent and detailed Rachel Wharton article in the New York Times’ “Wirecutter” publication, which contests the idea that “planned obsolescence” – some fiendish business tactic – is the cause.
Read the article and you will learn a lot about the market for fridges. You will thank me later.
I managed to trash our, cheap and quite old, washing machine by washing a handful of clothes in with a home-made quilt. When it got to the spin cycle it was horribly off balance and there was no way to stop it to sort it out. It broke the drum spider. Being a competent engineer I dismantled it and priced up the parts needed to fix it. Even doing the repair myself we were looking at about 60% of the price of a new one. The new one has a quick half hour cycle. Since our clothes are not normally very dirty, this is generally the only one we use. It must have paid for itself in electricity by now. Our Panasonic microwave is 32 years old.
Yes, I’m not sure what the argument is that is being put forward. It seems to be the opposite to the broken window fallacy. Hey if something breaks then don’t worry just replace it because it’s cheap. It doesn’t include environmental costs, nor does it provide any actual maths to show a machine that breaks down and can’t be repaired after 5 years is still going to be cheaper than a machine that is still going after 15 years. 3 x 1. Is that still cheaper? Are any marginal/larger gains in efficiency of the new machines enough to balance out the fact that you’ve used up more natural resources/created more pollutants to make an entirely new machine. And not withstanding disposing of the old one. Smells fishy to me.
There’s a live possibility of “penny wise and pound foolish” or “Vimes boots” in buying goods that are cheaper because they’re less durable. There’s also a whiff of fraud by sellers encouraging penny wise and pound foolish purchases through vagueness and understatement about the lack of durability in the cheaper goods.
Finally there’s an often under-served demand for greater durability at a higher price point. In particular, it’s often not possible to buy greater durability by itself rather than a part of a package with fancy extra features that may not be wanted.
Now there are cases where durability has improved. For example, the cars of 50-70 years ago generally had short lives compared to those that were built 15-20 years ago and are still going fine after 100,000+ miles. But those seem to be a minority.
It’s just “Capitalism In Action”. Cheaper goods of short reliability vs more expensive goods of longer reliability. It might take decades to work through to a stable market.
The two things that might affect market segmentation are well publicised ‘ease of use’ (perhaps merely 3 wash options, no timer or network connection) plus ‘guaranteed to last at least 8 years, or we will replace it’. Rather like some guarantees for EV batteries.
All we need is for the manufacturers to take up the challenge – which they will if it makes financial sense. Relying on brand name as a proxy for reliability is not such a credible selling point any more.
Oh, this is one of my betes noires. I’m flying this morning but will have Much to Say later.
llater,
llamad
A guy that I used to work with used to say that the true cost of something is the original price divided by how many times you get to use it. There are some things that are expensive because they are really well made and do pretty much last for ever. I’m still using Snap On tools that I bought in the 1980s. But then there are products like the Casio F91W digital wristwatch which are dirt cheap and seem to last forever too.
@Stonyground
I have always said the nicest t shirt I ever bought was a wonderful thick weave polo shirt by Yves Sant Laurent. Cost me $60.
And it was the most expensive piece of clothing I have ever bought because I never wore it.
A lot of the lack of repairability specifically electronics is because (I) companies don’t build it into the design because it’s not valued by customers, (II) the supply chain is controlled so parts aren’t available, (III) schematics for the boards aren’t made available which makes diagnosing the problem difficult.
Apple are one of the most guilty on these points, though not the only offender, and the same applies equally to farm equipment for example in the case of John Deere, as is “Fast Fashion.”
Louis Rossmann & FUTO has been fighting against this trend for a number of years to stuttering success at best.
I bought my home vacuum cleaner in about 1995 after the crappy Hoover I bought fell to pieces in less than 12 months, and it’s still going strong. It cost me about £125. I liked it so much I bought a second one in about 2000 for the tenant’s flat. It’s a Mercedes TLK1100 (it looks like a Henry) and is probably illegal now as the 1100 is the wattage.
Re Stonyground:
I had that problem every time I tried to wash my Spinal Tap tee for some reason…