Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

goodnewsnetwork.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 622 posts

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#381

Post by nvarsj »

itsnot2020 wrote: post #291
nom wrote: post #256

I never understood why people hate IKEA. Yes it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime. Yes it needs a lot of wood. Yes it's highly optimized. But guess what, IKEA is a business responding to the needs of people. The negatives that are mentioned frequently are merely a symptom of our ever faster developing society. The people who complain are the same ones that just buy cheap crap from china without even thinking ab…

It did used to last a lifetime though, my parents bought some items in the 1970s which they still use today (stools, shelves and the odd table), it still looks good as well.

Their architect lamps are still good and last for ages. They cost £10 - the designer ones cost over a hundred pounds.

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#382

Post by Xylakant »

killtimeatwork wrote: post #350
leokennis wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IKEA has several “tranches” of cheap furniture. Some of it is solely designed to hit a price point (“a $10 chair”) and is made of cheap plywood, cheaply connected. Some of it is more the “can we pick some low hanging design fruit, apply massive scale, and create a decent chair for 20% of the price it would normally cost” variety. That furniture normally lasts a long time.

> Some of it is solely designed to hit a price point (“a $10 chair”) and is made of cheap plywood Isn't plywood actually stronger than real wood? It's even used for aircraft construction.

Plywood is often stronger than solid wood, but most importantly it doesn’t bend when drying or in moist environments if it’s properly cross-laminated. However, cheap IKEA furniture is often laminated fibre, which is basically compressed sawdust. It’s an entirely different material.

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#383

Post by xxs »

lallysingh wrote: post #286
tweetle_beetle wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The annoying thing about IKEA furniture, and that from competitors, is that all it takes is for a tiny piece of particle board to be damaged internally for the whole item to be useless. Generally, while they are in one piece and not moved, they are fine. But trasnporting or disassembling this stuff is a risk. The tiny wooden pegs, plastic bits and agressive screws going straight into soft board can rip out chunks, sn…

But it's super easy to repair. Just glob some wood glue and it'll ooze deep into that particleboard. The edges of billy don't survive sliding, given, but some electrical tape for the finish and glue for the wood work well. It's not like we buy them as show pieces.

>edges of billy don't survive sliding

ABS edging is cheap (like really cheap), can get a cutting tool for 10 euro, and glue the edge with double sided tape (or contact adhesive - more messy thought)

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#385

Post by kstenerud »

News reel:

- Big company/person X is does beneficial thing Y

HN:

- It's just a PR stunt!

- It's a ploy to leverage something else and make more profit!

- It's so tiny that it doesn't even make a difference! If they REALLY cared they'd do A, B, C...

- They're actually doing Y to accumulate Z for some nefarious purpose!

- I once did some interaction with X or their products and it went poorly!

- X has skeletons I, J, and K in their closet! Watch out!

- Man, what's with all the X haters on HN today?

- Hoo boy, here come the X fanboys!

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#386

Post by netrus »

sneak wrote: post #344
hiq wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never understood why people hate IKEA. Did you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Criticisms ? There seems to be many reasons to dislike the company, even as a happy customer. One thing that stuck with me is this: "The IKEA group has a complex corporate structure, which members of the European Parliament have alleged was designed to avoid over €1 billion in tax payments over the 2009–2014 period." It seems e…

I'm not sure how "complies precisely with the tax law as it exists" is a point against anyone. Surely if you believe the state is entitled to levy taxes, then you wish for people to obey the laws they put in place dictating them, do you not? This idea "people should be paying what we want , not what we specifically legislated " is insane to me. If people aren't to comply with the law as written, what should they be d…

Easy example: Some entities are exempt from taxes, because they are not there to enrich individuals, but to profit a higher cause. Like Amnesty International. I think it is great that we exempt AI from paying taxes. Now it might be very difficult to write legislation that precisely encodes the difference between AI and McDonalds. After all, McDonalds funds children hospitals! If McDonalds tries to avoid taxes by trying to look like a NGO, the LEAST we can to is to be outraged and punish them as customers - because the only solution for the legislator might be to make AI pay taxes as well.

As a soccer player, it might be a good move to fall to the ground when the ref cannot see you. But you are an asshole if you do it. The rules of the game are fine, the player is an asshole.

Maybe you should consider the hate of the public just as part of the game these companies are trying to play?

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#387

Post by dfxm12 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #327
namdnay wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the argument would go that we would be better off building small quantities of long-lasting re-usable furniture, rather than building and throwing away lots of new cheaper furniture The low prices at Ikea and others definitely encourage over-consumption - buying a new table instead of restoring an old one for example Personally I don't necessarily subscribe to this argument, I think that we can focus on bigge…

Buying two $100 tables vs one $200 table is not overconsumption. Both consume $200.

Do they use the same amount of wood though? There's more to "consumption" than money!

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#388

Post by vidoc »

nom wrote: post #256

I never understood why people hate IKEA. Yes it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime. Yes it needs a lot of wood. Yes it's highly optimized. But guess what, IKEA is a business responding to the needs of people. The negatives that are mentioned frequently are merely a symptom of our ever faster developing society. The people who complain are the same ones that just buy cheap crap from china without even thinking ab…

> I never understood why people hate IKEA

Besides not providing the most durable furniture, albeit at the most competitive price and reasonably good looking designs, they've had a few PR disasters over the years like this one :p

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/25/172869585/ho...

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#389

Post by ehnto »

dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #229
loceng wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because they're fighting the arguably true reality that the majority of their furniture is designed to be disposable, and consumers are generally fine with that. I'd like to be wrong, though until we require companies to be responsible for all costs associated with the full lifecycle of a product so externalized costs are incorporated, we're not going to develop the most sustainable practices.

I wish this was extended to many other products. Automobiles for example, should incorporate the costs associated with poisoning our air (including EVs as rubber tyres shed microparticles). A bottle of coke should incorporate the cost of fishing the plastic out of the ocean.

Tires and brakes are both emitters, admittedly with motor braking you probably emit less total brake dust in an EV in a comparatively heavy ICE car.

Also still included in an EV is the carbon cost of mining, refining and manufacturing:

- Metal parts

- Plastic parts

- Organic fabric parts (raising cattle, big cost. Pleather? Still costly, and now it's plastic too, can't win)

- Battery minerals and production

- Electronics manufacturing

- Glass manufacturing

I am still all for EVs mind you, hell yes. But they are a massively consumptive item.

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#390

Post by sneak »

netrus wrote: post #386
sneak wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how "complies precisely with the tax law as it exists" is a point against anyone. Surely if you believe the state is entitled to levy taxes, then you wish for people to obey the laws they put in place dictating them, do you not? This idea "people should be paying what we want , not what we specifically legislated " is insane to me. If people aren't to comply with the law as written, what should they be d…

Easy example: Some entities are exempt from taxes, because they are not there to enrich individuals, but to profit a higher cause. Like Amnesty International. I think it is great that we exempt AI from paying taxes. Now it might be very difficult to write legislation that precisely encodes the difference between AI and McDonalds. After all, McDonalds funds children hospitals! If McDonalds tries to avoid taxes by tryi…

> Now it might be very difficult to write legislation that precisely encodes the difference between AI and McDonalds.

Perhaps that's because you're trying to legislate emotion instead of an objective difference.

If the rules should apply to one type of organization and not another (your "higher purpose" opinion), then it should be straightforward to unambiguously describe the difference in law: a bright line test. If you cannot, it's likely you're just trying to encode your own subjective personal dictatorial preferences into the law, which is contrary to the values of a society that believes in the rule of law.

It's possible that you just don't like McDs, or do like AI. That's fine, but trying to shape tax law based on your own personal value judgements is contrary to the ideas of equal application of the law to all members of society. This is sort of the "I know it when I see it" approach, and it's, in my view, a somewhat dishonest way to try to legislate personal morality into the public sphere.

Post reply on HN