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

311–320 of 471 posts

Re: Generation Junk

#311

Post by euroderf »

charles_f wrote: post #302

It feels like the author might be exaggerating ever so slightly, but it conveys a general feeling that things are built cheaply and without durability in mind. To me, whether it's worse or better than before is somewhat of a moot point. To follow their example: after a hundred years of building juicers, we should have global juicer expertise. The generations of juicers created, the feedback on the models, the breakag…

IIRC... it used to be that the durable & repairable products also dominated markets as the top sellers. But "advances" in materials (moar plastic!), outsourcing & logistics (containers!), electronics (shiny! shiny!), etc. created broad new ranges of "junk" that were attractive for their better affordability, replacing the top-shelf stuff as best-sellers. Wider access to basic functionalities (if not durability & repairability) created more buy-in for the economic system and the underlying political system. Vote Consumerism!

The top shelf stuff is in many cases still on the market, and might even be at roughly same-price after adjustment for inflation, but for Joe Sixpack, affordability trumps durability & repairability.

This might be a dreadfully oversimplified explanation, but it's my strong impression after seeing decades of market (d)evolution.

Re: Generation Junk

#312

Post by 0wis »

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…

In short, a survivor bias. I didn’t thought about it and it is possibly true ! There is probably as much if not more things produced today that will last many decades, but the only one we see of the past are those which survived.

Re: Generation Junk

#313

Post by ejb999 »

klipklop wrote: post #42

I wonder if this is the symptom of ever eroding purchasing power the average western person is experiencing. Everyone is looking to stretch their income further and are willing to buy ever cheaper, but flimsy goods. Really the only thing that will fix it is stronger warranty law, this will make things more expensive, but it will massively cut down on landfill fodder. A refrigerator that can’t last 20 years is terribl…

I have a GE refrigerator that is now 70 years old, and has never stopped working or needed repairs (at least in the 30 years I have owned it).

Doesn't have a touch screen, and there is no app to tell me what food to order, but it just keeps on running and doing what it is supposed to do. Not sure any amount of money could buy a new model that would last this long.

and before anyone says newer models are more energy efficient so I should replace it, you have to factor in the wastefulness of having thrown away 8-12 refrigerators over that 70 year time period and the impact that would have had on the environment.

Re: Generation Junk

#314

Post by theshrike79 »

pixl97 wrote: post #156
LeafItAlone wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have friends that just laid out $3000 for a new washer drier set and washer is already leaking from the front door. What brand?

Not Op, but if I had to guess Samsung. I won't buy their appliances.

Samsung stuff has all the pretty songs and touch screens and smart features.

They just forgot to add the actual functionality though.

We've got all AEG stuff and zero issues so far. 7-segment displays and physical buttons. Nothing to break.

Re: Generation Junk

#315

Post by coldtea »

coldtea wrote: post #258

A lof of the discussion here focusing on cars alone. The other examples mentioned in TFA are far more convincing: things like blenders, suitcases, clothes, kitchen gloves. Take your favorite casual clothes, like t-shirts. In many there has been a clear enshitiffication going on, with lesser quality fabrics, that last less than a few decades ago, even when the brand and the model remains the same. How about Lenovo vs…

I think the problem with cars is that it's a multidimensional change space (as they're a much more complex devices than something like a toaster or a blender or a piece of clothing), and in some dimensions they fare better (environmental impact of fumes, safety). If we stuck to aspects like local repairability, sturdiness, material quality, etc they wouldn't fare as well. But sturdiness for example also means they'd be more lethal on a collision, so there's a tradeoff with cars that doesn't exist in, say, toasters.

Re: Generation Junk

#316

Post by theshrike79 »

drcode wrote: post #4

I feel arguments like this always ignore the fact that buying a toaster in 1950 was a major investment for a family, and if you want to spend $2000 on a high-end toaster in 2023, which is probably equivalent in inflation-adjusted price to the 1950s toaster, it will probably also be very nice.

I'm _literally_ just looking for a toaster that'll outlast me and found Dualit: https://www.dualit.com/products/2-slice-newgen

Hand made in the UK, fully mechanical and you can get spare parts for it.

There's very little that can fail, it doesn't have a spring that brings the toast up, you need to push the lever yourself. Even the timer is fully mechanical.

Re: Generation Junk

#317

Post by euroderf »

> As for the much of the cheap stuff – those Target mittens, say – they aren’t merely inexpensive, they’re valueless. In fact, they’re of negative value when one considers the waste or materials involved, and the wasted energy of driving to buy them, then driving to return them later – a second trip that in this case, and many others, wasn’t worth making. Instead, we took the loss. And the world took the loss. A small one, but they add up.

"Value subtraction" was a key criticism of the Soviet system: outputs were worth less than inputs. Zoom out to our Big Picture (let's call it "life cycle analysis") and yeah, value is being drained away at every step. Some as dividends, some as environmental damage, some as political bribery, some as pure friction.

So if this kind of price signal no longer works in the American economy, then maybe the American economy is fundamentally broken and needs replacing. Not to mention the political system propping it up.

Rant concludes.

Re: Generation Junk

#318

Post by LightBug1 »

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…

N=1 ... we're still running my mothers microwave, which she must have bought in the 1980's ...

We could get rid of it ... but it just works. Hope we're not radiating ourselves!

I couldn't imagine a modern microwave lasting even nearly that long.

I'm also running a 2005 Toyota, and a 69 Bug ... cannot imagine any modern car doing the service they've done, and reliably so.

Re: Generation Junk

#319

Post by pshirshov »

Obsolence-shmobsolence. If you need a kitchen appliance, just buy Siemens. Of course the problem exists, but in many cases it's possible to buy stuff which lasts if you are willing to pay a premium.

Re: Generation Junk

#320

Post by p1mrx »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #146
p1mrx wrote: post #75

My advice on electric coffee grinders: just buy a manual one with a hex shaft, and drive it with a brushless drill. I've been making drill coffee for years now.

I wouldn't drive it with a drill because too fast and you'll damage the augur pretty badly. I just hand crank mine, it takes a little time and slows my pace, gives me a minute to think and it's a small work out.

The brushless motor gives me plenty of torque at low speed.
Post reply on HN