a pair of shoes that lasts years isn't as profitable as a pair sold every 6 months. a coat or car that can be repaired is one less customer shopping for a new one. engineers design cars they don't have to work on or repair, and will never drive.
in a healthy economy new entrants who introduce more competitive products that push us towards some impossible limit for utility and value over the lifetime of the product would be more successful. but that's not happening.
maintainable products that last are out there (fewer every year) but people don't buy them.
I have a pair of 5 year old redwing boots that feel fantastic amd look great.
I have a 1986 Toyota pickup I can repair myself that runs like the devil was chasing it. (new Toyotas are a disgrace)
I don't know how to fix it beyond getting people to really value and embrace these concepts of simplicity, maintainability and longevity, over convenience, trendy, flashy, and novelty.
thanks for coming to my TED talk please read shop class as soulcraft: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6261332-shop-class-as-so...
Because that's what they're told to do. Very few engineers revel in making worse products for business reasons.
Things I don't like about modern cars: they all look the same, crappy capacitive controls and touchscreens inside the car, constant tracking mandated by law, much harder to work on the car if you are a car enthusiast.
To me, a classic car from the 80s, or even early 90s is a far nicer vehicle to be in and drive, and provides a far better subjective experience, both in and out of the car, so in a sense, modern cars are "worse" for me.
I hate this. What is the year that this started?
> To me, a classic car from the 80s, or even early 90s is a far nicer vehicle to be in and drive, and provides a far better subjective experience, both in and out of the car, so in a sense, modern cars are "worse" for me.
Just to get this point out of the way: I believe that you are talking about enthuiast cars and not the the Oldsmobile, Taurus, and Chevy Calvaliers I rode around in as a kid.
If you are talking about a "fun-looking car", and you miss the 3-series from the 90's vs those today, buy a mini cooper. That's basically what they are now.
If you want to give up safety, reliability, affordabilty, and fuel efficency, you can still buy a 911. Move up the price range and you can buy Lambos and Masseratis.
Ha! I have a 45 year old pair of Red Wing Pecos boots that's been resoled twice. Now just use them for yard work, though.
Goodyear welted soles are expensive. You can buy 6 pairs of workboots from Walmart or hiking shoes from Decathlon at the same price. Resoling welted shoes cost more than double compared to going to buying a new pair of cheap Timberlands on discount.
Isn't the onus just as much on us as consumers?
Maybe we can correct (economic) future by simply insourcing some goods and therefore work and forget about the knowledge society boloney?
It really isn't something you want to find middle ground with. That's like looking for middle ground between wearing nail polish and having a gangrene.
Corporate media drives culture towards positions that benefit it rather than society.
The demand part is cultural. Lowering barriers to entry to enable more competition is political.
Both are needed to change course for the west.
WE do insource some goods – where we have comparative advantage, or where the cost of trade negates the benefits of trading with someone who produces it at lower opportunity cost. Insourcing beyond that draws the production possibilities curve inward, making us (and our trade partners) poorer.
Generally, this is a losing deal. It is possible that there are incidental distributional advantages, so that it makes us poorer in aggregate but distributes returns in a way which reduces harms from the current distribution. But that’s not obviously generally the case, and in any case without clear and overwhelming evidence that this would be the effect I’d rather just attack distribution from a position of greater aggregate prosperity than start lopping off prosperity and hoping better distribution came out of it.
The cheap junk is designed here in the US to be as cheap as possible and break as soon as possible. We did that. Not them.
They're just building it.
But the bottom line is, it is junk that comes from China, ergo Chinese junk.
Look at my fridgidaire fridge and dishwasher - both recently broke at the same time after a few years. Both top of the line consumer models. They're still made in the US, but they're disposable junk sold at the homeless despot.
The fridge is $2k, but has the same cheap components from $400 fridges. Cost cutting is everywhere. Hold the right people accountable, IMO.
Although some of that manufacturing has started to shift recently to India and Vietnam.
I mean it was only a short while ago that they were able to manufacture metal balls with enough precision to make ballpoint pens.
Besides the fact that they are known for making jumps and leaps in progress by stealing trade secrets. Just calling it how it is, I don't think they deserve credit for working in this way at all, if it weren't the case then I'd be applauding them.
When someone says "Chinese junk" you're not really insulting the people IMO. Just the cheap grade disposable crap you can find in corner bazaars. That stuff that breaks after 2 uses.
Like someone else said, in the 80s "made in Taiwan" was a rubbing joke and before that Japan. But it has nothing to do with the people, just the phase their industry is in.
It's like people here in Europe saying American cars are gas guzzlers (which they mostly are compared to EU models). You wouldn't take that personally.
Thanks to modern economy in Canada for example people with median and below income currently can't afford to buy anything but junk. Same goes for quality food. Price of accommodation, food and many other things have skyrocketed.
This is what is "worse"
The traditional, raw items common to the Anglo-Irish diet like potatoes, corn, flour, butter, cabbage, etc are super cheap in Canada. Meat pricing has been super challenging since the pandemic started.
Canada don't really have the same kind of agricultural subsidies that the United States has. Buying a bag of doritos isn't cheaper than a bag of potatoes. Nor, a big mac cheaper than raw ground beef.
Making those your main source is highly unhealthy. It does not matter if it is called "Anglo-Irish".
Greens, veggies, decent fruits, meat, fish - through the roof. In Loblaws in particular as I often shop in one.
Vine tomatoes - $5 (used to pay $2). Fucking green onions - $2 for pathetic bunch (used to pay $0.5 for a bunch at least 3 times as big). Smaller box of mixed greens - $6 (used to pay $3-$3.50). Etc. etc.
All of this regular, never mind organic.
Meanwhile median income in Toronto is just below 40K - https://wowa.ca/average-income-canada#Toronto . Combine it with the cost of accommodation and you get an idea.
I think that this is big distinction between USA/Canada.
Potatoes are cheap because we have an industrial supply-chain for potatoes that developed and grew for a hundred years. This is linked to the whole "Anglo-Irish" thing. Potatoes are also cheaper to grow and store.
Greens and fruits are super-perishable and require lots of packaging and protection.
> Making those your main source is highly unhealthy.
I hope nobody is eating green onions as their main source of food. (I am being faceous)
Civilizations have since the dawn of time had some kind of staple cereal crop that provided the majority of the caloric intake. It can be rice, millet, maize, wheat or potato. If you don't use one of these as your main source of calories -- yeah, your grocery bill is going to be expensive in any place and in any time.
For sure -- food price inflation has gotten way more expensive this year and I have no idea how anyone lives in Toronto at the median household income. I think I agree with you, but maybe we have a different way of expressing things.
That is exactly my case. Also I am toll(ish) muscular guy and do about 2 hrs of cardio per day. My main diet is lots of meat / fish / chicken in combination with salad (greens, tomatoes, cukes and green onions), apples and berries. So yes it is expensive but I consider it better choice when one can afford it and for my lifestyle.
Yes I love fried potatoes and some other unhealthy stuff so I may sometimes go wild on weekend but if I switch to it as main caloric source (and I did so some times) I do not feel all too well.
"Chinese junk" can also be used as a term of criticism for a tendency among Chinese suppliers to dishonestly skimp on quality. Hearing of the many troubles American companies have with suppliers in China, this seems to be a valid criticism. However, having worked in the Middle East, I can testify that this problem can be as bad or worse elsewhere.
It is noted than Japan had a similar reputation in the early 20th century, and I think Switzerland also had a reputation for poor quality in the 19th century. In both cases, the governments started programs to change things. There is desire within China to change their reputation. I've read that Alibaba is actively trying not to be seen as a venue for selling "Chinese junk."
It is also the main source of complex products of high quality. Problem is the price. Where it matters I buy industrial grade stuff for home use. It works for ages. But it also priced accordingly. Canadians with median income and below simply can not afford quality stuff.
Meanwhile, not sure about the rest of the world, but my personal impression is that in Canada general public mostly thinks that Chinese only steal, copy and produce nothing but junk and are not capable of anything else. So yes it is racist / xenophobe attitude in my opinion.
Yes it is Chinese junk if it is junk and manufactured in China - they have created an entirely new economy just for this stuff.
And "xenophobic" is just a nicer way to call someone racist. It was a smart move on China's behalf to produce this junk, they have most of the world's manufacturing.