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…
I have a Truvox vacuum cleaner that was bought when wife and I first moved in together in 1993. It is also like a Henry but made of metal. I think that we are on our second chest freezer and our second fridge if memory serves. I bought a Roland digital piano in around 1995 it is now at my niece’s house and still works, I passed it down when I bought myself a better one.
A slightly odd example is a cheap mountain bike that I bought in the early 1990s. I used it to commute and, as I started to get a little more serious about cycling, I gradually upgraded it by fitting better quality components to it. Like Trigger’s Broom, eventually none of the original bike remained. It has done more than twenty thousand miles over the years and I still have it.
We live in a rich world in which our appliances and vehicles and clothing have become status symbols, and, like all status symbols, we need to replace them regularly to be current. So, why build a fridge to work for 20 years when we need to impress people by buying a new one, with the cool internet screen on front and wifi egg-checking, every 5?
I stopped doing the status symbol stuff decades ago when I realised that I don’t give a shit what other people think about me. Probably a good thing really as young me didn’t have a clue about what would impress people anyway.
This is a good attitude. Anyone who gets impressed by what fridge or washing machine you have isn’t worth knowing.
On the subject of status symbols. I remember a guy showing off his Rolex watch and being a bit miffed when I pointed out that my relatively inexpensive Casio G Shock was superior to it in pretty much every way.
Who the hell’s going down into your cellar to oogle your freezer?
@Stonyground
On the subject of status symbols. I remember a guy showing off his Rolex watch and being a bit miffed when I pointed out that my relatively inexpensive Casio G Shock was superior to it in pretty much every way.
When one of my kids was in Dubai on a school trip he bought a fake Armani watch for me at the Souk. I loved that thing. I liked it MUCH more than I would a real Armani watch. I think there is something deeply wrong with those women who spend $15,000 on a handbag. FWIW, I am generally reluctantly in favor of copyright law and trademark law, but when it comes to that sort of stuff, it seriously makes me wonder.
The irony is that all that fancy brand buying is there to signal that you have resources, when in fact, to me it proves the exact opposite — you have no resources because you spend it all on useless crap. However, I guess people can do what they want with their money.
As to appliances wearing out: first of all I’m not even sure if that is true. I think modern manufacturing makes nearly everything better. It is also worth saying that modern manufacturing is done with much more careful tolerances and more sophisticated designs and so that fact that Joe Weekend Warrior can’t fix it is because it is better, not because it is worse (he says making handwavy, gross generalizations.)
The whole “modern stuff is not as good as grandpa’s stuff” sounds to me like one of those memes about the good old days. Let’s be clear, the good old days really sucked for the most part.
But people can and do buy products of much higher quality that last a lot longer. For example, if you buy Miele kitchen appliances they will last forever. But they will cost you an arm and a leg.
It also reminds me of the constant lament about how air travel used to be so much better in the old days. But you can absolutely get the same experience today: you just have to buy a first class ticket which is the same you’d have paid — inflation adjusted — back in the good old days. And, heck, today the planes don’t crash nearly as much, which is, in my opinion, a big improvement.
“F**king EasyJet. In the old days they greeted you at your seat with a glass of champagne and caviar. Today, on my 40 quid ticket I barely get a packet if crisps.”
Well it is certainly not capitalism – as that has been to-a-large-extent (although not totally) replaced by Corporatism, enforced by endless regulations, and backed by endless Credit Money.
Does it matter that some modern products are not very good, fail, and can not be repaired?
Of course it matters.
But critics tend to be better at seeing problems than in seeing solutions, indeed their “solutions” make things even worse – they push us even more in the direction of a Corporate State.
“For example, if you buy Miele kitchen appliances they will last forever. But they will cost you an arm and a leg.”
My mother bought a Miele dishwasher on that principle, it was rubbish and lasted no longer than the cheapo versions do.
I’ve come to the conclusion there is no ‘better quality’ version of goods any more, its all the same quality pretty much, just they sell products with different stickers and cosmetic designs covering the same basic underpinnings. You pay more for a ‘Bosch’, which was probably made in the same Chinese factory to the same standard as the no name cheapo brand. When the Bosch was actually made in Germany, it probably was better, now its just brand marketing you’re paying for, and an illusion of quality.
I see it in farming – Fendt used to be the premium tractor brand because it was objectively better (German designed and built back in the 70s, 80s and 90s) and would outlast the other brands. Now its owned by AGCO its still far more expensive because buyers haven’t worked out its now no different really to the other other tractor brands under the same ownership such as MF and Valtra. A Fendt no longer uses premium parts – I’ve seen £300k tractors lying idle because a $10 part has failed (again). You might as well buy the same spec tractor in a ‘lesser’ brand thats £100k cheaper, because it’ll be made from exactly the same quality components as the ‘premium’ brand.
Hopefully, comely young things who are impressed at such appliances.
I don’t much like worms, but I’m not above using them to attract fish. 😉
I remember trying to buy a lawnmower – there were plenty on offer, but they were all flimsy. I tried using one and it broke in my hands.
I have not got stronger over the years – the equipment has got weaker. It seems unable to stand up to rough usage.
Technological advance should make products more robust – not less robust.
As for motor cars – they now depend on electronic systems, as-do-most-things) so the next major solar flare (see the Carrington Event of 1859 – such a flare will hit again) will be “interesting” in its effects.
They can also be turned off remotely – as can most things, indeed even voting (at least in much of the United States) depends on “voting machines” which are electronic and, therefore, can be manipulated.
If one is a Corporate State “International Community” totalitarian, then all the above is good – if one is not, then it is not good.
Weapons are interesting – one would have thought that at least weapons would get better over time.
Yet there are serious question, for example, about how robust the new main American army rifle is.
A military rifle has to be able to fire ammunition that can penetrate enemy armour and cover, and be robust enough to withstand lots of abuse on the battlefield – over a long period of time.
If it can not do these things – it is a waste of money, and it will lead to the deaths of one’s own solders – and to DEFEAT.
The NATO 7.62×51 cartridge came out more than 70 years ago (in 1954) – but is there any real need for a fancy new rifle cartridge when the 7.62 will penetrate the armour an enemy soldier is likely to wear, and much of the cover as well?
Still perhaps the Chinese People’s Liberation Army is coming up with new body armour for solders that does require a different approach. I-do-not-know.
At least the 5.56 is on its way out – the arguments made in support of it were rather silly – perhaps the most absurd being “wounding an enemy takes up more opposition resources than killing an enemy” – as if likely enemy forces cared about their wounded.
Hardly a new consideration – Frederick the Great (back in the 1700s) did not care about wounded soldiers either – which is why there were few crippled men begging on the streets of Berlin after his wars.
British travelers remarked on that (as if it was something good) – not understanding that in the army of Frederick the Great men who received wounds that would cripple them (make them useless for future service) were often just allowed to die.
This is the case in many enemy forces today (“do not be upset – you are going to Paradise”) so rifle cartridges really do need the stopping power to kill – and kill as quickly as possible, thus preventing enemies from setting off suicide explosive charges (and so on).
Overall systems, both military and civilian, need to be robust enough to withstand attack – if only by nature and rough usage.
This need not make products more expensive – indeed it can be less expensive to make a robust product than a product with lots fancy, and delicate, stuff in it.
Government regulations (and Corporate fashions) tend to push towards flimsy products that often need to be replaced – for example kettles that break if they are dropped.
This is not really a “planned obsolescence” conspiracy – it is just general bureaucratic (government and corporate) crapness.
Oh, boy. Where to start?
Membrane switches in consumer applications.
Any of the family of “nylon” polymers.
Any of the polyacetals (Delrin) unless used at 3 to 5x the manufacturer’s PV numbers. Case in point – the plain-bearing drum rollers used in almost-every clothes dryer.
The most-common home appliance in the American home 100 years ago was a Singer sewing machine. And Singer had (apparently) a deliberate policy of making and flooding the market with billions of spare parts. I have a side-gig servicing sewing machines for a charitable cause. I just repaired a 1937 Singer using NOS parts I bought off the Interwebs for pocket change. A major reason for the throwaway culture is that the parts are simply unavailable at a reasonable price. I don’t understand why a PCBA for a fridge tgat cost $10 at first assembly is priced at $300 for repair – maybe a smarter business head than I can explain.
I don’t buy the ‘users will just buy a new one’ argument, for social as well as economic reasons. I know of dozens of refrigerators, freezers, washers and dryers that are 40 and 50 years old, still running, still giving good service, still appreciated by their owners for their value and durability. Last year, I had to put a new drive belt in my MIL’s dryer – it’s a Kenmore, she’s had it for 50 years, still works like new. In that time, mrs llamas and I have junked 3 dryers, until we got smart and bought a Speed Queen, which is built like that old Kenmore and will last like it. MIL moved to a facility last fall, we gave away her drier to an enthusiastic neighbour and it’s still running today, and will run another 50 years.
Paul Marks – regarding the XM7, that programme is indedd FUBAR’ed, but it’s not the fault of the rifle itself, but of the agencies in charge of it’s development. See ‘The Pentagon and the Art of War’, by Edward Luttwak – they cocked up the Armalite programme in the same ways 60 years ago. But it is that kind on management approach which leads to the kinds of issue with appliances which we are discussing. See also Boeing (save money on retraining by adding code that the pilots don’t understand so we don’t have to redesign and recertify for larger engines) Colt Firearms (rapidly burning up a 100-year reputation for quality and reliability by shipping non-working junk) SIG-Sauer (let’s sell a pistol that we know goes off if you drop it) and the list goes on.
Much of this is ‘modern’ management philospophy. But (IMHO) a lot if it is down to designers and engineers who are fabulous CAD operators but who lack real-world experience of the products they design. In many industries, these folks are essentially gypsies, moving from gig to gig based on their computer skills and not on their design nouse.
There’s a place for deliberate disposal, of course. In light to medium fabrication, a basic tool of the fabricator is the 4 1/2″ angle grinder. A Makita or a DeWalt costs $80 to $100. A Harbor Freight costs $14.99 and even cheaper on sale. The shop boss at my last job used to collect coupons and buy the $14.99 grinders by the dozen, and hand them out on free issue. On average, they’d last a couple of month before they were run over by a hi-lo, or dropped from a great height, or had something dropped on them from a great height. They were still working fine, until . . . and he got $1.00 a pound for them at the scrapyard. That makes sense, and is real-world recycling. Tossing out a $750 washer after 6 or 7 years over a part that should cost $8.50 but is charged at $250 plus labour – or, even worse, tossing out a $1,000 refrigerator over a known, built-in design flaw that causes it to freeze up solid and then flood the owner’s kitchen (yes, you, Samsung) – that’s the kind of process failure that kills companies, and (contra the assertions of their marketing pinheads) is not driven by customer demand for Bluetooth washers and wi-fi fridges.
A bit disjointed buy, hey, I am, what I am.
llater,
llamas
I think we also lose something by making things that are not repairable at low cost by a person of moderate skill and knowledge, namely, the satisfaction of fixing something as well as the knowledge of how it works. If you know how it works, you are less likely to turn an old gizmo up to “11” as my mother-in-law did on an after market AC unit in a Ford Escort. Blew the hoses instantly.
But I suspect these are “guy things”, wanting to tinker and fix and understand the inner workings of things. My wife is only interested in my inner workings and fixing those! 🙂
I have an anecdote to offer: a chemist friend of mine tells the story of his first job, where he got his first dose of disillusionment on how some large companies think. He was working on the formulation of the plastic that would be used to make the doors of a refrigerator. He found a way to make the plastic last decades. The bosses said ‘no’, it needs to last 10.5 years because the warranty is 10 years.
Anecdotal. One company. One industry. But it always rung true to me as a general aspect of modern manufacturing of consumer goods. Maybe industrial and military spec goods too?
Re Bosch, I bought a lawn mower recently, and could not assemble it because the holes for bolts were misaligned. I had to open them up with a file to make the damned thing fit together. Only then did I look at the box to see my Bosch was made in, of course, China.
They are trading on their reputation for German quality to sell Chinese crap. Except they will never sell it to me again.
My previous lawnmower was a Bosch and gave good service for over 30 years. I expect Bosch saw that as a problem. Good way to kill brand loyalty.
GregWA – the regulations push things in the direction of products (including cars) that are not easily repaired. Byt making things both complicated and flimsy.
I doubt it is a formal conspiracy (and it is certainly to do with capitalism) – it is the product of a state that tries to be “all in all” (to steal a line from Edmund Burke’s son), and corporations that benefit from such a state.
And it is not just “small” products – even power stations are hit.
The vast and absurdly complicated, and absurdly expensive, nuclear power stations are the result of endless regulations and policies – which do not make nuclear power safer, quite the contrary.
Part of the reason, one suspects, is the rabbit hutch houses they build these days. There is no room to keep stuff, so it has to be thrown out and another one purchased when needed.
Back in the early 70’s I attended a six-month firecontrol school. About half of the time was spent teaching component level troubleshooting for firecontrol radar receivers (all vacuum tube stuff). The chiefs conducting the classes pointed to a side benefit in that what we learned was all applicable to television receivers. The circuitry basically does the same in both applications, receive an RF signal and paint video on a CRT cathode ray tube. In this day any of that stuff outside of a land fill will most likely be found in a museum.
I used to do a part time job working the projector at a tiny old cinema in Beverley. The projector there was an antique. It was used every day and was amazingly reliable. The amplifier for the sound system had rows of vacuum tubes in a sort of rack. None of the wiring inside was colour coded, it was all black. That cinema closed when a new modern multiplex appeared on the North side of Hull which meant that it wasn’t far to travel from Beverley. Beverley now has a modern cinema of its own.
Barbarus – those would be the houses that the clever people in London Institutes say do not exist, because the “Planning Laws” prevent them.
I see endless houses (big as well as small) and flats, being built – in and around every town, but, supposedly, they do not exist.
Frank – there is a chap who comes into the art shop I look after, he can repair any of the equipment you mention. But, as you say, it has been replaced with stuff that is impossible to repair.
Stonyground – at least Beverley has a cinema, Kettering no longer has one.
What Llamas said, and everyone who reported the bait-and-switch of a bastardized nameplate on Chinese junk.
If there were any clearer evidence of the cultural decline and moral corruption often discussed here – it is the willingness to sell out a hard-won reputation for a quick buck… apres nous la deluge. These are decisions made by people raised without fathers – or by “upper class” parents who did soulless bureaucratic/financial work.
It’s the free market at play. There’s not enough room in the market for anything which manages to sell durable stuff for a premium, and it needs to be a hefty premium and a reliable reputation on top of it!
Not enough people would want it to matter, and no brand can last long enough to build that sort of reputation nowadays.
The biggest problem I see nowadays is the sheer pace of change need to stay relevant, and this extends to the goods and services we use too.
There are, I feel, some parallels to the ‘learn to code’ derogatory remark. In both cases, it’s fitting in with the times, understanding that things are going to keep changing, and changing at a faster pace than ever before.
The Wobbly Guy.
What “free market”?
What country are you talking about? There certainly is not a free market in either Britain or the United States, which have fiat (edict – whim) money, a Credit Bubble financial system, truly vast governments (over 40% of the economy in total government spending) and endless regulations.
There is no free market here – or anything close to one, not even vaguely.