Hopefully I’ve worded the question right.
I was once told (I could never verify if it was true) that a crocs company once almost went bankrupt after they made their crocs practically indestructible. Whilst the story was most likely bullshit, it makes me wonder: if a company can make a product that is practically indestructible, is it ethical for them not to make them indestructible, so people will buy more from them?
The way I look at it is, on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money and that less is wasted, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families? So I can’t decide, what do you think?
It’s not ethical, it’s capitalism and democracy in the name of the lord Money.
I would not want to own a car, of almost any make, made after 2010, because they are made shittier on purpose while being more expensive and harder to work on. One company that stands out is Tesla. Even before the Cyberdumpster Shitbox came out, I had decided I’d never own one after a story I’d seen on Louis Rossmann’s YouTube channel. A guy bought a used Tesla that had been upgraded with extended range. After bringing it in for an unrelated issue, those assholes rescinded the upgrade and wanted $6,000 to give back what they took away. More and more other manufacturers are trying to pull similar bullshit, which is pushing me to become more and more of a Luddite.
planned obselescence is an ongoing thing, they figured if they make a very long lasting product, they wont be returning customers, what better way to use shrinkflation,chepflation every 2-5 years. things like fridges and microwaves often is replaced every 2 years.
Is it ethical to do something unethical?
No
If they can make it indestructible but it costs three times as much, it’s not unethical for them to make a less-indestructible version that they sell for less money.
Anything beyond that is rent-seeking.
no, of course it’s not. but ethics for the worker and consumer do not exist under capitalism. only for the shareholder.
And if you talk too much about it then u are a communist who killed 8 billion people and likes to eat kids
Imagine you went to a football game and bought a serving fries. They come in a little clay-lined paper dish. The clay lining in that dish resists small amounts of oil for about 30 minutes, but after that time is up, the oil will penetrate through, soaking the dish and possibly staining your clothes.
The manufacturer could’ve used a plastic lining instead. It’s more resistant for much longer, and is still food-safe at reasonable temperatures. Is the choice of clay over plastic unethical? Or is it reasonable to pick a cheaper, more recyclable material with the assumption that it won’t take most people a full 30 minutes to eat their fries?
Different things have different purposes and need to meet different standards. “Breakable” vs “durable” isn’t an objective measurement of quality.
I remember when the standard cup for those events was waxy paper, and the feeling of condensation coming off of the wax and making your fingers extra grippy.
Now most paper cups are lined with polyethylene, so they don’t leak but also can’t be recycled or composted properly.
You can pay more to get better made things. Like most refrigerators are trash now, you can buy a commercial grade one and it will last like the one you had in the 70-80s but it costs $5,000+ easily and has nothing special about it.
And half the time you buy that $5000+ refrigerator it’s actually an overpriced shite refrigerator that’ll break in 2 years.
May the odds be in your favor.
Companies are not people. They have no ethics. The only thing that keeps them in check is regulation and market forces.
People make the decisions at companies and those people should be held accountable for their lack of ethics.
Yes, I feel we are making the same point. A company is neither ethical or not. The people who work there are.
yes
I don’t believe so.
If every product was made with the highest standards of materials and craft, then all of the products would be more expensive. A competitive free market is meant to allow a wider variety of consumers access to products that suit their individual needs, and price is a huge part of those needs.
I do think it’s unethical to charge too much for products that aren’t well made and that it’s a failing of capitalism that it’s not just allowed, but encouraged.
The lie of free market is in the assumption of perfect knowledge. In order for the free market to work as intended (self regulate), the consumer is supposed to have the perfect knowledge of the product, its internal quality, all available alternatives and their respective prices. In reality, absolutely no consumer can possibly have the necessary breadth of knowledge about each and every product they buy and service they use, so the market winners are the ones with the best marketing and/or lowest prices.
And that is why nothing seems to last anymore.
Is it ethical for you as a consumer to buy low quality stuff that you know will break?
For me personally; the parallel of that is that I can fix things and/or upgrade them.
But most times you don’t know it the first time.
If the companies were required to produce something of a particular durability the average cost would be lower and more accessible to all stratas of society; your ethical argument comes from a place of significant privilege.
Your argument comes from a position of everything is someone else’s fault you are powerless.
It may truly be the case for you. But most other people can make a difference for the better regardless of what the government or companies do.
Ok corpbro.
Hmm… never thought of that…
You may only have the power over your own purchase decisions, but hold on to what power you have.
Every company does it. It even has a name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
No, it isn’t ethical.
I think that’s a slightly different thing, albeit with a similar outcome depending on intent.
You can make “indestructible” versions of lots of things, but that doesn’t mean they’re remotely affordable or even desirable (due to weight or materials used).
A company deliberately making something bad so it breaks is what you’re describing, but a company making something lower quality so it’s cheaper isn’t necessarily the same.
Maybe not every company.
There are companies that went broke by making their product indestructible, a notable example being the maker of the wildly popular Instant Pot. They made a product that just didn’t break. This is called planned obsolescence failure and has happened to other companies too.
That being said, making flimsy shit on purpose is shady at best.
This is why capitalism is stupid at its core. It doesn’t promote anything good. It only promotes greed and enriching the top. Make the shittiest product you possibly can that people will buy, buy out every other maker of product, repopulate the sector with fake brands to give people illusion of choice.
Oldest trick in the book. And literally not 1 person I know can see through this trickery.
In capitalism making a long lasting good product is not viable at all, it makes no sense. Who gives a shit if your great grandkid is still using your oven 60 years later, the shareholders dont benefit then. Out of business. Its an idiotic system kept alive only by propaganda.
Won’t any one think of the shareholders!!
It would be so easy to fix, too.
the longer your shit lasts, the more your line goes up
Good idea
this is a failure of consumerism, materialism and greed. not capitalism.
Those are all byproducts of unregulated capitalism.
Those are all byproducts of
unregulatedcapitalism.also true
Dont get me wrong, humans are just shit, and I think any system is going to eventually fail because assholes get in power. But more places could at least try a mixed capitalism/socialist approach like we have seen works in Norway/Denmark (at least I think thats how they aporoach it)
“True capitalism has never been tried” heeheehee :p
lolol
The real reason was private equity
Private equity made things a lot worse. In 2019, Instant Brands was acquired by Cornell Capital and unceremoniously merged with Corelle Brands, a housewares company that includes Pyrex. An acquisition by a private equity firm brings certain expectations with it—namely: lots and lots of fast growth.
Corelle/Pyrex is its own story of going from the best product to “good enough”. Simple point, if you find yourself some old stuff of theirs, hang on to it because you can’t find anything comparable anymore. Same can probably be true of other old brands of products. I found an old Whirlpool dryer that I won’t ever let go of for the same reason. What will eventually fail on it I can either fix or buy a new, cheap part.
Right. Like I also hate capitalism as it exists today, but it is definitely possible to make a living making GOOD products. You just can’t make billions doing it. Even if the product was LITERALLY indestructible, people will lose them, plus they’re always making new people. It’s just a lot slower than if you make a shit product people have to keep replacing
agree 100%. It’s only impossible if you saturate the market, which means you’re a huge player.
The poor growth that private equity didn’t find attractive could have been due to lack of repeat purchases tho.
But it means that the company was doing fine for decades.
The company that made instant pot actually went bankrupt because it was acquired by private equity via leveraged buyout.
What you’re telling is the story the evil assholes that profit from that kind of thing want you to believe.
IIRC a leveraged buyout is where one “company” buys another company using loans and then makes the acquired company pay the loan including interest.
private equity could have slashed the product due to poor growth (due to ppl not buying repeatedly).
I agree it’s what evil assholes want us to believe, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a false claim.
Oh honey
Bless their little heart.
Huh
Yeah it’s a right dilemma. Because on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families?
It won’t in socialism. China is doing rather well, overall.
Are you implying that china is socialist?
China is socialist.
The people’s billionaires
l’mao.
Lol is this french lmao?
It was a pun about Mao :)
Think about all the waste that cheap products create. I can buy a cheap pair of work boots twice a year or a good pair every 2/3 years. I believe it’s unethical for preying on the poor while also creating more waste.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. … A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. … But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socio-economic unfairness.
Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms
Haha the first thing I thought of. The finest literary example of representing economics with boots!
I just paid about $200 (including taxes and shipping) for a pair of leather work sneakers that should last about a year, if I take good care of them, but sketchers usually break down inside about 3 months of wear. I didn’t want to spend it, because gestures at everything, but I had to make the hard decision.
To be fair, a year is pretty pathetic performance even for work books unless you step on landmines for living.
I know, but for the insides to hold up that long for that price nowadays is decent. In older days, shoes were made to last longer, and specifically fitted at the heel and toe.
“Low
endmargin, high volume” markets.True that waste is also a factor in this.
it’s called engineered obsolescence, a concept driven by German auto industry post 2000 and the reason why they are all in financial trouble today. Specific example: they started using plastic engine parts with plastics that last a set number of heat cycles. They are designed to fail within a set time period. AUDI now uses plastic oil pans that cost as much as steel pan to make. BMWs are catching fire from pressurized fuel systems failing because the plastics are failing. They also move the timing chains to the back of the motor, so that when the chains fails, it will be too much labor to replace and the car is junked.
Tesla uses structural battery packs, so when the pack dies, the car dies. Similar concept to gluing phones together.
Exactly 💯
