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

411–420 of 622 posts

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

#411

Post by hibbelig »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #111
piokoch wrote: post #14

This smells like some really bold and really ridiculous PR attempt. "Ikea uses about one percent—yes, one percent—of the world's entire commercial wood supply. That amounts to about 17.8 million cubic yards of lumber last year. " [1] I guess they need this PR purchase to appease some eko organization. And this is equally ridiculous. Ikea is making furniture, something people really need. Why they have to explain them…

> Ikea is making furniture, something people really need. Why they have to explain themselves for doing something useful? What should they use to produce furniture? Would plastic be any better? Iron? Stone? Unfortunately we live in a world where virtue signaling is more important than actual virtues and winning arguments is more important than actual winning. Yes this is a PR thing and will help to create a positive…

> _Note: A tree is useful and carbon negative only if it is growing a tree in forest that has stopped growing is mostly useless for offsetting carbon,_

Don't trees grow till they die?

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

#412

Post by BurningFrog »

dfxm12 wrote: post #387
BurningFrog wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Wood is a renewable resource.

I don't see how using it is bad.

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

#413

Post by remirk »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #234
mystcb wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a different point of view, I would say that I don't see their furniture as "designed to be disposable", more that there is good marked for re-use through other people. Spotted a few comments from people saying they have had second hand items (3rd, 4th etc) - and I think that in my head is where my version of "disposable" has come from. When I no longer want an Ikea product because it doesn't fit, or no longer ne…

When people say "designed to be disposable" they don't mean reuse is not possible - just not likely, because a thing wears out quickly, or is a hassle to give someone else. Former means there's not much of a second-hand market, the latter means that even giving away for free is too much work compared to just dumping it. I'm very much surprised about the amount of comments here on HN (today and in many previous discus…

I see a lot of classic examples of survivorship bias in this thread.

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

#414

Post by Kihashi »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #234
mystcb wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a different point of view, I would say that I don't see their furniture as "designed to be disposable", more that there is good marked for re-use through other people. Spotted a few comments from people saying they have had second hand items (3rd, 4th etc) - and I think that in my head is where my version of "disposable" has come from. When I no longer want an Ikea product because it doesn't fit, or no longer ne…

When people say "designed to be disposable" they don't mean reuse is not possible - just not likely, because a thing wears out quickly, or is a hassle to give someone else. Former means there's not much of a second-hand market, the latter means that even giving away for free is too much work compared to just dumping it. I'm very much surprised about the amount of comments here on HN (today and in many previous discus…

I've moved twice with all of my furniture and it's still going strong. The only thing that worries me for my next move would be the board on the back of my bookshelf, since it's only held in with very tiny nails.

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

#415

Post by lotsofpulp »

ashtonkem wrote: post #393
lotsofpulp wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a problem of unnecessarily complicated tax laws.

IKEA also has a will to abuse them to a degree that their peers don’t, and we should judge them as less ethical for it.

Which degree should we start judging at?

When people deduct taxes for donations to universities to increase the odds of their child being accepted?

When people deduct taxes for charity to their church/temple/organization/other tribe in order to direct resources in a way that might benefit them more directly versus the nation as a whole?

It's either legal or it's not. If you want the "abuse" to stop, then elect the legislators that will make the loopholes illegal.

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

#416

Post by mytailorisrich »

rychco wrote: post #353
sneak wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

avoidance != evasion

Fwiw, the first definition I found for the word evade is “escape or avoid, especially by cleverness or trickery.”

"Tax evasion" refers to illegal actions to indeed evade tax lawfully due.

"Tax avoidance" is the perfectly legal practice of (more or less aggressively) minimising the amount of tax lawfully due.

Everyone engages in tax avoidance at least to a degree.

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

#417

Post by throw14082020 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #289
throw14082020 wrote: post #282

Is this good or bad? Imagine an oil company buying up large oil fields, and they say, to stop oil production. They just bought resources they can do whatever they want with.

Why make an analogy with oil companies? Ikea uses a renewable resource (wood, from tree farms), then goes further and buys a natural forest for conservation reasons. ikea doesn't need to buy the forest for the wood.

What I mean is buying land is not a commitment to anything good or bad. It just means they can now use the land for anything they want.

> ikea doesn't need to buy the forest for the wood

This is a great investment, and this is business. It is ridiculous to think they're buying it just to offset their footprint.

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

#419

Post by Spooky23 »

adolph wrote: post #312
etempleton wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like IKEA furniture for what it is. It is thoughtfully designed, afordable and usually very easy to assemble. However, their US customer service is essentially non exsistent. I had items delivered damaged and could not get in touch with anyone. I eventually gave up as the effort was not worth it.

As frustrating as that is (and I’ve had my share of it to know), if I turn the feeling upside down, maybe there is an iron triangle of cost, error rate and customer service responsiveness. If the price attraction rate is higher than the customer losses represented by product error times the fix error rate, then you win. If the error rate is pushed too far or the customer service white gloved, then costs must be highe…

That makes sense if you're talking about getting a stale loaf of bread once in awhile. But if you're talking durable goods, the overhead of one incident erases all potential savings or efficiencies.

I'm a fan of Ikea and their products, but their shipping in particular and any process that requires call center interaction are ridiculous and a complete waste of time.

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

#420

Post by lotsofpulp »

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…

>the only solution for the legislator might be to make AI pay taxes as well.

What taxes would AI pay? They're not selling items for profit. The only change that would need to happen is removing the ability to deduct charitable contributions from taxable income. I don't see any problem with that. People can still donate to AI with after tax income.

Post reply on HN