Anyone else fed up of mass-produced, disposable carp?

[Doobedoo]

Like almost everyone here, you're considering only profit per sale and overlooking the fact that selling things far less often will also affect income. If a widget is replaced on average every 2 years the profit per sale needs to at least cover 2 years of costs (payroll, maintainence, etc). If a widget is replaced on average every 10 years the profit per sale needs to cover at least 10 years of costs.

I think there are only two ways to implement that sort of scheme that might possibly work:

1) A communist economy with goods produced by the state as a service to the people. A real communist economy, not the failed versions used in various authoritarian states that were allegedly trying to implement communism.

2) Most people not owning anything much, not even basic household items, because everything is much too expensive for most people to buy. Most people can't pay £1000 for a washing machine (and I think £1000 is probably too low an estimate of the cost of the cheapest washing machine under proposed changes). So most people would be locked into renting almost everything. Renting their TV. Renting their washing machine. Renting their boiler. Renting their carpets. Renting pretty much everything and paying a high price for it. The rent on a £1000 washing machine would be much higher than the rent on a £200 washing machine. That's so open to abuse that it would require such a degree of state control that you're pretty much back to a communist economy.

Maybe a communist economy would be better. Maybe it isn't impossible.

All valid points but you could also say that about the car industry. Most people can’t afford to buy a new car so they end up renting one or paying interest on a finance deal. Many cars will also last 15 or more years if you want it too but car manufacturers still get by.

Don’t get me wrong you and others make many valid points and you can quite easily take what I say with a pinch of salt. The reality is this mass consumerism model is not sustainable over the long term, something will have to change somewhere, sometime.

 

[sigma]

Like almost everyone here, you're considering only profit per sale and overlooking the fact that selling things far less often will also affect income. If a widget is replaced on average every 2 years the profit per sale needs to at least cover 2 years of costs (payroll, maintainence, etc). If a widget is replaced on average every 10 years the profit per sale needs to cover at least 10 years of costs.

I think there are only two ways to implement that sort of scheme that might possibly work:

1) A communist economy with goods produced by the state as a service to the people. A real communist economy, not the failed versions used in various authoritarian states that were allegedly trying to implement communism.

2) Most people not owning anything much, not even basic household items, because everything is much too expensive for most people to buy. Most people can't pay £1000 for a washing machine (and I think £1000 is probably too low an estimate of the cost of the cheapest washing machine under proposed changes). So most people would be locked into renting almost everything. Renting their TV. Renting their washing machine. Renting their boiler. Renting their carpets. Renting pretty much everything and paying a high price for it. The rent on a £1000 washing machine would be much higher than the rent on a £200 washing machine. That's so open to abuse that it would require such a degree of state control that you're pretty much back to a communist economy.

Maybe a communist economy would be better. Maybe it isn't impossible.

Something will have to give, as the world gets richer and demand increases. Not to mention as and when climate change bites. As usual it'll be too little too late.

 

[Doobedoo]

Something will have to give, as the Few gets richer and demand increases. Not to mention as and when climate change bites. As usual it'll be too little too late.

Corrected that for you

 

[sigma]

Corrected that for you

Sure, some really rich people will get even richer but lots of poorer people will get richer, these are the people I was referring to:

By 2030, the global middle class is expected to reach 5.3 billion people. This means an additional more than 2 billion people with increased purchasing power than today.

Not to mention that Africa will follow in decades to come.

I've got nothing against these people getting richer/healthier/more educated, the sooner the better, I just think rampant consumerism won't do the world any good.

 

[Doobedoo]

Maybe the requirements to be called middle class has been lowered.

The NGO thus notes that the richest 1% of the planet has more than twice the wealth of 90% of the world population.She also points out that the 22 wealthiest men hold more wealth than the entire female population in Africa. Or that Bill Gates , who has nevertheless dedicated part of his heritage to humanitarian causes, has seen his fortune double since he left the management of Microsoft. An " absurdity " for Pauline Leclère, spokesperson for Oxfam France, who denounces " a failing and dysfunctional economic system ". “ It is not admissible that an extreme wealth which is concentrated in the hands of a handful of billionaires rub shoulders with still too great poverty.Today almost half of the world's population lives on less than five euros a day, the poverty line as defined by the World Bank .

 

[sigma]

Maybe the requirements to be called middle class has been lowered.

Also from the world bank:

According to the most recent estimates, in 2015, 10 percent of the world’s population or 734 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day. That’s down from nearly 36 percent or 1.9 billion people in 1990.

 

[FoxEye]

@Bear (and others)

I don't think this is a purely engineering problem. It's a multi-faceted problem arising from how we've built our societies and economies.

The argument against what we currently have is that it's not sustainable, and it's maximally damaging to the environment.

We throw away vast amounts of materials which are perfectly fine, for the sake of one small failed component.

That means the energy cost of manufacture is largely wasted, as is the (environmental) cost of gathering and refining the components (ie metals, esp rare Earth metals, and plastics, etc).

We view this as normal. We dispose of vast amounts of 90% working items, and we often dispose of them incredibly poorly. Recycling rates in this country are comically bad, and the numbers are grossly fudged by dumping it all in places like Thailand anyhow.

To sum this all up: I don't think it's a problem of pure engineering. It's a problem of western culture. Often this can include greed, both from consumers and producers. The greed of wanting to have too much for too cheap; the greed of putting profits above all ese.

Does anyone here think the status quo is sustainable or the only economically feasible way of producing goods? That there are no alternatives, or that the current system is fine and will not result in major ecological damage? Or that the current status quo can go on indefinitely for much longer? I know people talk a lot about mining asteroids and such but for the sake of this discussion I think that is off topic. We'll run out of oil at some point to (cheaply) create new plastics at least.

And all the while the cost (energy, environmental damage) of extracting new materials is taking a fairly heavy toll. And the haphazard way we dispose of things that are "old" is perhaps an even bigger concern than the cost of making new stuff.

e: Perhaps the reason that the £200 washing machine is "profitable", is that the manufacturer doesn't have to bear any of the cost of recycling or disposing of the damn thing, when a $0.20 component fails and renders the whole thing useless.

 

[Doobedoo]

Also from the world bank:

Does that account for the population increase from 1990 to now?

The quote I posted is from the World Economic Forum held annually in Davos. Every year the gap widens go check it out.

 

[dowie]

The argument against what we currently have is that it's not sustainable, and it's maximally damaging to the environment.

We throw away vast amounts of materials which are perfectly fine, for the sake of one small failed component.

That means the energy cost of manufacture is largely wasted, as is the (environmental) cost of gathering and refining the components (ie metals, esp rare Earth metals, and plastics, etc).
[...]

e: Perhaps the reason that the £200 washing machine is "profitable", is that the manufacturer doesn't have to bear any of the cost of recycling or disposing of the damn thing, when a $0.20 component fails and renders the whole thing useless.

I agree but it doesn't mean you have to go along with it - quite the opposite in fact, (while the environmental thing is only really something you can tackle by voting, encouraging others and/or by your individual actions) you still benefit from much cheaper goods that are available because of the actions of other consumers and you can make the choice not to throw away the washing machine because of the failure of a cheap component.

I certainly made that choice - new brushes for an otherwise perfectly workable machine was a no brainer (granted the dryer function on it is naff but then again I own a flat and so can't really fit in an additional machine/tumble dryer in place of a kitchen cupboard).

 

[sigma]

Does that account for the population increase from 1990 to now?

The quote I posted is from the World Economic Forum held annually in Davos. Every year the gap widens go check it out.

I'm not disputing that the gap widens. The gap doesn't really relate much to the point we were all discussing.

The increase of 2 billion people each wanting billions of goods is very much related to the point though.

 

[Angilion]

All valid points but you could also say that about the car industry. Most people can’t afford to buy a new car so they end up renting one or paying interest on a finance deal. Many cars will also last 15 or more years if you want it too but car manufacturers still get by.

Rentals and loans work (just about) for a handful of items, but the proposals so far would greatly increase the cost of everything and make rental or loans necessary for everything for most people. Which I think can't work. Not without such massive state control that you'd have something very much like a communist economy anyway and it would then make sense to cut out the middleman and go full communist.

Cars also have a necessary spare parts and servicing sector, so there's profit there too. It's not a one sale per 15 years thing. At least for now. There was a vehicle industry that did produce very long-lasting vehicles that required very little maintainence - milk floats. Which had huge problems because of the longevity of the vehicles made.

Don’t get me wrong you and others make many valid points and you can quite easily take what I say with a pinch of salt. The reality is this mass consumerism model is not sustainable over the long term, something will have to change somewhere, sometime.

I agree, but it will have to be a lot more than longer warranty periods.

 

[V F]

@Bear (and others)

I don't think this is a purely engineering problem. It's a multi-faceted problem arising from how we've built our societies and economies.

The argument against what we currently have is that it's not sustainable, and it's maximally damaging to the environment.

We throw away vast amounts of materials which are perfectly fine, for the sake of one small failed component.

That means the energy cost of manufacture is largely wasted, as is the (environmental) cost of gathering and refining the components (ie metals, esp rare Earth metals, and plastics, etc).

We view this as normal. We dispose of vast amounts of 90% working items, and we often dispose of them incredibly poorly. Recycling rates in this country are comically bad, and the numbers are grossly fudged by dumping it all in places like Thailand anyhow.

To sum this all up: I don't think it's a problem of pure engineering. It's a problem of western culture. Often this can include greed, both from consumers and producers. The greed of wanting to have too much for too cheap; the greed of putting profits above all ese.

Does anyone here think the status quo is sustainable or the only economically feasible way of producing goods? That there are no alternatives, or that the current system is fine and will not result in major ecological damage? Or that the current status quo can go on indefinitely for much longer? I know people talk a lot about mining asteroids and such but for the sake of this discussion I think that is off topic. We'll run out of oil at some point to (cheaply) create new plastics at least.

And all the while the cost (energy, environmental damage) of extracting new materials is taking a fairly heavy toll. And the haphazard way we dispose of things that are "old" is perhaps an even bigger concern than the cost of making new stuff.

e: Perhaps the reason that the £200 washing machine is "profitable", is that the manufacturer doesn't have to bear any of the cost of recycling or disposing of the damn thing, when a $0.20 component fails and renders the whole thing useless.

Logitech once told me to throw away the solar keyboard when the battery failed. So I looked on Amazon and found rechargeable coin battery for £1.xx. It had now been replaced twice.