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

Generation Junk

walterkirn.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 471 posts

Re: Generation Junk

#281

Post by julian_t »

woopwoop wrote: post #12

So this article implies that a number of things that we buy previously were built to last longer, and indeed did last longer. The first few examples are kitchen appliances. In this case I don't really know, but I'm at least willing to listen. Ultimately the evidence is people responding to a thread on Twitter where he solicited complaints. Not so compelling. But then he mentions a "hybrid sedan". Here I'm aware of th…

Speaking of kitchen appliances, we need a new immersion blender and my wife wants a cordless one. The old corded one lasted nearly 20 years, but most cordless ones have non-replaceable batteries and so are going to become junk long before the mechanical parts wear out.

Re: Generation Junk

#282

Post by jbm »

ericbarrett wrote: post #70
fritzo wrote: post #29

Author neglects selection bias: antiques that stopped working after 1 or 5 or 10 years have been in landfills for a long time. My grandfather (1922-2006) opined: "Some folks say things aren't made like they used to be. But I remember those junky old cars that would break down every 50 or 100 miles. I remember that unreliable crap. I'd far rather have a modern car, even if I can't fix it." (He was more of a carpenter…

The comparison I'd make is not to cars from the 20th century, but the early 21st, about the last your grandfather experienced. There's a vast difference in the quality of a car from 2005 or 2010 and the equivalent from 2023, and it's not favorable to the latter.

My experience with cars from that generation of cars and modern cars is not at all similar to yours.

My 2003 Mustang V6 manual was a complete moneypit. The electrical system went in the first year, despite me taking it regularly for maintenance. There was no traction control and it used more gas for less power than my current minivan.

My parents' 94 Taurus rusted easily and their 02 oldsmobile alero was a pure shitbox that was uncomfortable to drive and was in the shop all the time.

My 2016 Sienna and 2019 Model 3 are, by all means, better cars. (I was using the train in the meantime, much less stress than driving was) I have had zero issues (outside changing to winter tires)

Re: Generation Junk

#283

Post by InCityDreams »

hasoleju wrote: post #247

Their might also be one other statistical artifact: Todays households simply own much more stuff. We possess so many items that we experience the failure of an item much more often than in the past where we owned less stuff.

> Todays households simply own too much stuff.

Very true. I moved to my current place with a single car of belongings - now, I'd need a truck. I have two flatbeds of trash just ready to go to the tip, and I'm looking to reduce even more. I'd love to just give it all away, but that would take a while. I am prepared to a) go without, and b) buy something again if i really think i need it. The amount of 'stuff' [another nod to George Carlin] I/we have really is ridiculous.

Re: Generation Junk

#284

Post by ghusto »

jonahss wrote: post #49

Ok no. First of all: survivorship bias. All of the old appliances that still work are only the ones which still work. This goes for the author's juicer. Second: things which have investment attention now are excellent quality and things which are waning towards the end of their lifecycle are having the last few corners cut before the Private Equity firm that now owns them throws in the towel, throughly wrung dry. Aut…

> First of all: survivorship bias

So let's take all the things that I had in the 90s that I had to replace because they broke:

- ...

You can say I'm only remembering the positives, honestly, I can not think of a single thing I _had_ to replace. I remember buying new things, but it was always because I wanted the new-shiny, not because I had to.

Survivorship bias isn't "only being able to remember the positives", it's _concentrating_ on the positives and neglecting to take into account the negatives.

Re: Generation Junk

#285

Post by lawgimenez »

ahf8Aithaex7Nai wrote: post #265
woopwoop wrote: post #12

So this article implies that a number of things that we buy previously were built to last longer, and indeed did last longer. The first few examples are kitchen appliances. In this case I don't really know, but I'm at least willing to listen. Ultimately the evidence is people responding to a thread on Twitter where he solicited complaints. Not so compelling. But then he mentions a "hybrid sedan". Here I'm aware of th…

Of course, cars and engines in particular are more durable today. This is due to technological progress. Cars weren't designed to be unreliable back then, they were unreliable because they couldn't do any better. Two or three years ago, I bought a pair of headphones for 200 euros that looked pretty high quality. They're now so broken that I have to hold them together with gaffer tape. Soon they'll be rotting (or not…

Latest earphones from Apple has degraded considerably. My old Apple earphones with jack just died this year but it’s 5 years old.

Right now, their earphones lightning won’t last a year anymore. I have been buying it yearly for 3 years now.

Re: Generation Junk

#286

Post by joduplessis »

The article is not so compelling for me. I've used my coffee grinder going on 5 years now (almost every single day/multiple times a day). What is true, I find, is that you really get what you pay for (99% of the time).

Re: Generation Junk

#287

Post by tomjakubowski »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #145
im_down_w_otp wrote: post #68

I’ve had to buy a lot of furniture and other things for my new house this year, and one of the things that really sticks out to me is that practically every category of product seems to be split into a bimodal distribution: cheap crap & luxury boutique. There are practically no entries occupying the middle of the market that are on the basic end regarding features & frills but also high-quality. It’s incredibly annoy…

That's a mind-boggling anecdote. As an example, Crate and Barrel are known to make good, high-quality couches, and many of them are far less than $5000

Does Crate and Barrel actually make furniture? I thought they were a retailer only, a middleman between the consumer and a white label manufacturer.

I don't mean to detract from your point with this - I've had a few things here and there from them, I agree they sell quality stuff.

Re: Generation Junk

#288

Post by bouk »

ghusto wrote: post #276
woopwoop wrote: post #12

So this article implies that a number of things that we buy previously were built to last longer, and indeed did last longer. The first few examples are kitchen appliances. In this case I don't really know, but I'm at least willing to listen. Ultimately the evidence is people responding to a thread on Twitter where he solicited complaints. Not so compelling. But then he mentions a "hybrid sedan". Here I'm aware of th…

> Modern cars are much, much more reliable and durable than ones built at any time in the past. I continue to buy older cars because this has been false for me everywhere I've experienced new cars (borrowed, friends, my own). Pointing out lack of data to support an argument that relies on anecdotal evidence is good practice. However: - The anecdotal evidence is strong amongst older people - Data not existing doesn't…

Of course the old cars you can still buy now are the reliable ones, because the unreliable ones have long been scrapped

Re: Generation Junk

#289

Post by IshKebab »

ericbarrett wrote: post #70
fritzo wrote: post #29

Author neglects selection bias: antiques that stopped working after 1 or 5 or 10 years have been in landfills for a long time. My grandfather (1922-2006) opined: "Some folks say things aren't made like they used to be. But I remember those junky old cars that would break down every 50 or 100 miles. I remember that unreliable crap. I'd far rather have a modern car, even if I can't fix it." (He was more of a carpenter…

The comparison I'd make is not to cars from the 20th century, but the early 21st, about the last your grandfather experienced. There's a vast difference in the quality of a car from 2005 or 2010 and the equivalent from 2023, and it's not favorable to the latter.

No there isn't. Car quality has barely changed in those years.

Re: Generation Junk

#290

Post by ghusto »

bouk wrote: post #288
ghusto wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Modern cars are much, much more reliable and durable than ones built at any time in the past. I continue to buy older cars because this has been false for me everywhere I've experienced new cars (borrowed, friends, my own). Pointing out lack of data to support an argument that relies on anecdotal evidence is good practice. However: - The anecdotal evidence is strong amongst older people - Data not existing doesn't…

Of course the old cars you can still buy now are the reliable ones, because the unreliable ones have long been scrapped

That, is an excellent point. However, the very reason I buy in them in the first place is that they proved themselves to me _at the time_. Believe it or not, what I'm saying is I never had a bad experience with cars from the 90s, in the 90s.
Post reply on HN