Are Consumerism and planned Obsolescence Really Bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shakuhachi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Shakuhachi said:
They keep the economy going. The more we buy, the more we need to produce, the more people we need to employ.
Click to expand...
And yet, both worldwide and in the U.S., economies not based on this model have survived and even thrived throughout history. This was true long before shopping malls, mercantilism (now called “globalization”), and the annual release of a new iPhone. What were they doing that we aren’t.
 
Xarto said:
I find that I’m only getting one, two years tops out of my washing machines and dryers no matter what brand I go with.
Click to expand...
That isn’t even the warranty period for a lot of washers. The one I got a few years ago has a 10 year warranty on the major mechanical components. I’m not saying things aren’t made to different standards than they were years ago but if you’re finding stuff destroyed that quickly I can’t help but wonder if you’re use-case isn’t within the norm.
 
We have to buy such an extended warranty. How does one misuse a washer and dryer?
 
More weight than intended, higher duty cycles. These numbers aren’t always front and center on the specs though which is misleading by the manufacturer. I know the 10 year I got was longer than most but you aren’t getting at least 3 years? Often credit card companies extend warranties by a year as well if you buy using the card. 2-3 years just sounds short, planned obsolescence doesn’t explain that imho because if the lifespan of the item isn’t long enough you don’t replace it with the same brand.
 
Shakuhachi said:
They keep the economy going. The more we buy, the more we need to produce, the more people we need to employ. The greater concern seems to be the waste and the damage to the environment.
Click to expand...
It’s true that the more we buy the more we need to produce. However, if people are producing cheap products so that consumers can buy cheap products, they are probably not being paid high wages. We see people working multiple jobs, leaving no time for family or for rest.

Then those cheap products break quickly and end up in landfills while consumers replace them with more cheap products.

It’s not sustainable in any sense of the word.
 
I think the Christians should tame themselves with some kind of deprivations and moderation. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This wrestlers logo should be for the Christians as well.
We should not forget that Christians have a mission on this earth, and as Clive Lewis said, there is no need to confuse our eternal home where our all aspirations are with a precautionary tavern.
Here on earth every thing is temporary, and changing the inner person is also a fight against gluttony, excess, desires and many soul-harmfull pleasures.
 
Last edited:
I think another danger is the addiction. We seek our happiness and fulfillment in having something new. we get distracted and misplace our priorities.

Planned obsolescence is just here. It is not going to change. We can only do our best to take care of what we have. I am like that because I don’t want to have to buy again. I still had my telescope I got when I was 13. I stupidly loaned it to a neighbor kid and he moved without returning it.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
However, if people are producing cheap products so that consumers can buy cheap products, they are probably not being paid high wages. We see people working multiple jobs, leaving no time for family or for rest.
Click to expand...
Not all the people have the means and luxury to make such investment-style decisions - purchase high priced, but good quality and long lasting products.

Regarding multiple jobs. Its gig economy, precariat - the consequences of the automation, digital economy. The new Industry 4.0 manufacture sufficient products and services, but the socio-economical structure and logic suppresses wages of the low-skilled, replaceable workers. Low wages, poverty and inequality are not the consequences of scarcity (as it was even half-century ago), they are the consequences of the socio-economic structure. Universal Basic Income can be solutions - provide means for survival and skills development and as support for moving for higher paying jobs. But so much people have this reservation against any changes of the socio-economic structure or against UBI.

So - sufficient number of people should move into the precariat and only then the laws of the economy will be possible to change by the consensus political agreement. But well - this will require the changes in the morale of the work…
 
I see this as a fundamental flaw of capitalism as it is practiced today.

A couple years back, politicians were encouraging people to “go out and spend” to stimulate the economy.
No thank you.
I’d rather save my money for a rainy day.
 
Consumerism has the problem of causing people to lose appreciation for what they have and to tie their self-worth as human beings to the amount and novelty of their material possessions. When people inevitably fail to have the most or the flashiest things they end up feeling like failures and becoming miserable. The end result is a lot of people who have all their survival needs met and who lead comfortable existences but who still feel miserable most of the time because they don’t have the newest and flashiest toys and/or because they’re working so hard to keep up with Joneses that they sacrifice time with loved ones. Consumerism leads to envy, ingratitude, and misery.

Planned obsolescence is just legal hucksterism. It’s a company intentionally making it’s product of lower quality so that it breaks down sooner and the customers have to purchase new ones. This practice profits the companies but at the detriment of their customers. A shoe company with the technology to make shoes that last several years instead makes shoes that fall apart after one year, and customers throw it away after six months anyway when a newer pair comes out.

Not to mention that goods don’t just stop existing when we throw them away. While some can be recycled, there’s always some waste and a lot of it ends up in landfills or in environments.

What good is a big number on stock charts if the price is a ruined planet and a miserable population?
 
I took out a 3yr extended warranty on my new one, fix or replacement.
 
Actually, planned obsolescense has been here a long time. I remember when my father worked for Chrysler in the 70s in the engineering dept and talked about “value engineering” which meant installing cheaper components in the car while they were charging the same price to consumers. I don’t agree with the practice, however. It creates a false economy. Just look at the constant having to upgrade software, phones, etc. Why should I have to spend extra money all the time just to have something function that wasn’t broken? In the old days, you could have the same landline phone for under $20 that lasted 30 years. Now, the phones costs hundreds. It’s baloney.
 
OTOH, the abundance of goods and services also leads to narcissism, self-entitlement, and materialism, and it’s coupled with the drive for increasing productivity leading to more stress.

Another interesting irony is that some from the same societies long for a simpler world, where people produce their own food and do not become obsessed with what’s advertised, thus allowing for authentic self-respect. It’s also notable that in several of these poorer communities one sees more active religious activity.
 
It’s not just about using cheaper components or creating some false economy but maintaining the business cycle. That is, businesses must sell each year, and if the products that they manufacture last longer, then they can’t. In addition, they have to sell more each year because they have employees who want a raise or promotion, more young people entering the work force and looking for jobs, and so on. That means coming up with “new and improved” products each time.

The result is a combination of increasing production, overproduction, and overconsumption.
 
False, false, and false. The worst take on capitalism I have ever seen. @ralfy
 
Last edited:
It’s not just part of some legal hucksterism but the need to maintain sales, and given competition plus more workers who want more pay and more young workers joining, higher sales. That means encouraging people to buy more, which is also why planned obsolescence is coupled with advertising and marketing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top