How often have you taken a gadget or a pair of shoes in for repair and found out that fixing it will cost more than buying a new version? Too often, that's how often. And Sweden is trying to fix this, by halving the tax paid on repairs and increasing taxes on unrepairable items.
The new proposals come from the ruling coalition of the Social Democrat and Green parties, and, if successfully enacted, would be accompanied by a publicity campaign to encourage Swedes to repair products instead of replacing them.
"If we want to solve the problems of sustainability and the environment we have to work on consumption," Sweden's finance and consumption minister Per Bolund told The Local . "One area we are really looking at is so-called 'nudging.' That means, through various methods, making it easier for people to do the right thing." Nudging might involve clearer signage to reach the recycling station, for example.
The proposed legislation would cut regular tax on repairs of bikes, clothes, and shoes from 25% to 12%. Swedes would also be able to claim half the labor cost of appliance repairs (refrigerators, washing machines and other white goods) from their income tax. Together, these tax cuts are expected to cost the country around $54 million per year. This will be more than paid for by the estimated $233 million brought in by a new "chemical tax," which would tax the resources that go into making new goods and computers.
In 2015, France passed a law requiring manufacturers to label products with information about how long spares will be available, and also requires free repair or replacement for the first two years of the product's life.
Related Stories
A while back, retired journalist and octogenarian, Chris Biddle, had an excellent interview with author and digital rights activist Cory Doctorow about digital restrictions. They speak in particular about digital restrictions technologies which have been spread within agricultural equipment through the equipment's firmware. Their conversation starts out with mention of the use of network-connected firmware to brick the tractors which were looted from dealership sales lots in Ukraine by the invading Russian army. Cory gives a detailed overview of the issues hidden away by the mainstream press under the feel-good stories about the incident.
But was the bigger picture more worrying? I speak with Cory Doctorow, author, Guardian journalist with a special interest in protecting human rights in this digital age.
He says that whilst 'kill-switches' used to disable the machinery provide a security benefit, it is possible that widely available 'hacking' technology could also be used to disrupt the world's agricultural infrastructure by those with more sinister motives.
All of which feeds into the Right to Repair cases currently going through the US courts. It is also all about who owns the tractor, who owns data, and who owns the rights to the embedded software?
Deere contends that a customer can never fully own connected machinery because it holds exclusive rights to the software coding.
Some US farmers have attempted to unlock the embedded by purchasing illegal firmware –mostly developed by sophisticated hackers based in Ukraine!
The interview is just under 45 minutes.
Previously:
(2022) New York State Passes First Electronics Right-to-Repair Bill
(2022) John Deere Remotely Disables Farm Equipment Stolen by Russians from Ukraine Dealership
(2022) A Fight Over the Right to Repair Cars Turns Ugly
(2021) Apple and John Deere Shareholder Resolutions Demand They Explain Their Bad Repair Policies
(2021) The FTC is Investigating Why McDonald's McFlurry Machines are "Always Broken"
(2020) Europe Wants a 'Right to Repair' Smartphones and Gadgets
(2019)
New Elizabeth Warren Policy Supports "Right to Repair"
(2016) Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:20AM
Why are you wasting your time repairing that broken computer when I can buy a new computer for $100, and since we're discussing you, why are you getting paid to repair broken computers anyway? You're fired and replaced with nothing, because we don't need a socially awkward IT guy hanging around here being an unwelcome eyesore.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:46AM
Years ago, there were appliance repair shops, shoe repair shops and Seamstresses who could mend clothing and do things like adjust size for weight gain/loss and/or growing children. Now, thanks to globalization coupled with near slave labor, all of the things we once repaired because they were costly, are now disposable. I see microwaves, TV's and computers in the trash all the time. All of those repair shops I grew up with are long gone. Amazingly, the longest surviving was the shoe cobbler. Though the seamstress's seemed to have moved into the dry cleaners but they are Chinese now.
Manufactures realized that people don't give a crap about quality. Why do you think a lot of American cars over the years have gone through a complete shit - decent- complete shit cycle? Because they can save a few bucks and make the car look good without spending all sorts of money on frivolous things like engineering, testing, and quality control. Good enough became the status quo.
Recently I complained on here about my completely useless nexus 7 (original 2012) which was hosed via Google's own software updates. I was bored the other night and decided to see if I could do anything with it. Turns out the latest CyanogenMod does in fact bring it back to life. And all this time I thought it was gone after I read a report that stated that some google bug ruined the flash storage permanently. So I proceed to flash the thing with my Linux laptop and voilà! A working nexus 7. All this time I thought it was hardware damaged but it was just Google being Google. I felt so much better not having to throw the thing out after two years of being useless.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:19PM
Cool repair on the Nexus 7 - do they have something similar for the original Apple iPad?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:41PM
I just bought a pack of six white T-shirts at Costco for $18. I'll turn them into rags when I'm done with them.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:03PM
You sure about the 7? I had one too, slow to crawl too, cyanogen modded it, its OK for awhile then slow.
I couldn't isolated the problem for sure to flash or lack of ram. Lack of ram kills performance. So I stripped everything but kindle off and used it as a reader, until it slowed down too, presumably due to the flash degradation problem. I'm pretty sure theres two ways to kill performance of a 1st gen nexus 7 one is lack of ram and exploding app size make it unusable for general purpose work, and the other is the slowly permanently creeping flash disease.
I gave up hope, when it was contemporary I had a hand held little phone (defy xt maybe?) and a big ole tablet. Now I have a 6p phablet thats almost too large for my stylish cargo shorts, so I don't need the tiny phone/large tablet thing going on.
In retrospect if it helps either of us feel better the life of a lithium battery is short and baked into the cake and my theoretically "working" yet brain damaged 7 is probably at 90%+ of battery life anyway although its not dead yet. And its not really built for disassembly either.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:00PM
It was night and day after flashing. Went on a bunch of different web sites and it ran buttery smooth with the default install browser. BUT it has only been two days so far.
And yesterday I installed the google store app and basic google functionality as well as a few google apps like the keyboard, reader, and photos. That seemed to slow it down but only after the first time an app was ran. After that it was smooth again. I'm keeping the install light this time. Nothing extraneous and I'm not even going to install Chrome. Been using Firefox and the default cyanogen browser so far.
Since I'm happy that I have a working tablet, my bedtime reader and web browser, I'm going to be flogging it for the next week or two and I'll see what happens.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:30PM
Manufactures realized that people don't give a crap about quality. Why do you think a lot of American cars over the years have gone through a complete shit - decent- complete shit cycle? Because they can save a few bucks and make the car look good without spending all sorts of money on frivolous things like engineering, testing, and quality control. Good enough became the status quo.
I think you hit the nail on the head -- it's not that people don't care about "quality," but the "qualities" they care about are mostly superficial. It's part of the nature of disposable culture. My grandparents basically never threw much away until they got all possible uses out of it. Not only did you mend the clothing multiple times, but once it was a bit too ragged, it became what you wore on the weekends while gardening or whatever. And once it was too messed up for that, it was cut into patches (for other clothing) and the remainder was torn into rags and reused for cleaning and other purposes until it literally fell apart.
That sort of durability and reuse isn't common in our culture anymore, so we simply don't expect it of products. Heck, you mention cars -- but we barely even pay attention to it even in houses! In the real estate transactions I've been involved with and conversations with real estate agents, I've realized that people don't give a crap about "quality" even in what's often the largest purchase of their lives. They'll walk around noticing new doorknobs and sink fixtures, while admiring the paint colors. The owners could have spent $1000 sprucing that stuff up for sale, but it means nothing about the durability of the housing structure. If they sunk $30,000 into a new HVAC system, buyers won't care and they'll likely never get even a fraction of that back in the sale. But spend a couple thousand on that cool "breakfast nook," and suddenly they can raise the price by $15,000.
It's all about the superficial over the durable. If houses cost just a little less, we'd probably see them built basically like cars -- people would live in them for 5-10 years and just abandon them and build a new one down the street.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:17PM
People care more about cost more than anything. How else do you explain those garbage tools that were being sold at harbor freight? I mean an angle grinder for $15 or cordless drill for $20 were selling. My friend bought one of those cordless drills and it was a complete waste of resources from start to finish. Battery couldn't hold up for more than 15 minutes of mild use and its torque was pitiful, a 3/8 drill bit in soft pine caused it to stall after drilling about 2 inches into the wood. But people buy it because it's good enough.
Same goes for those awful low end laptops that have been floating around. Lid hinges that break, failed motherboards, specks lower than what Microsoft even recommends like the 5400 rpm molasses drives, 1-2GB ram and 1280x720 screens. But they are good enough.
Cars are the same thing. Oh wow! look how cool that car looks! Oooooo, a nostalgia mobile! oh its fast or trail rated or some other bullshit metric. But after a few years it's a maintenance nightmare. Everything begins to fail and your paying good money to fix stupid shit like leaking gaskets, cracked radiators and intake manifolds made from fucking plastic and electronics that seem to work when they want to or just up and fail completely. But the car looked good and was affordable. I don't want refined interiors. I don't want sleek looks. I don't want good enough. I'd happily sacrifice some luxury and comfort for a vehicle that works for 10 years without major issue. Same with everything else.
The home fixing thing is something that requires some research. When you buy one, you have to hire an engineer, no exceptions. And make sure they are independent from the realtor otherwise they will give you a big thumbs up while the realtor slips them an envelope. Have them go over the fine details and make sure the property is surveyed too. Paint and decor cant hide things like structural problems, illegal modifications or additions, hidden fire damage, dangerous or sloppy electrical work, bad plumbing and property boundary problems or hidden right-of-ways. A lot of this is because people don't want to spend the money and you have "contractors" go in and do all of the work themselves, often with little or no knowledge of building codes and required skills. They wind up making a huge mess. Hell, go on the stack exchange DIY site for homes and see how many idiots are asking how to fuck their homes up on the cheap. But the paint and decor hides all the sins and its good enough!
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:47PM
A lot of this is because people don't want to spend the money and you have "contractors" go in and do all of the work themselves, often with little or no knowledge of building codes and required skills. They wind up making a huge mess. Hell, go on the stack exchange DIY site for homes and see how many idiots are asking how to fuck their homes up on the cheap.
While true, my point is where the incentive lies. Part of this is exacerbated today with the way people switch jobs and move so much. In a lot of desirable neighborhoods, most houses just sell every 5-10 years. So, they're basically "disposable." People don't care about the stuff you mention because all they care about is "Does it work well enough for me?" and "Can I sell it again in 5-10 years?" They don't care if there are structural problems that might cause the place to collapse 30-40 years from now. They don't care if the repair they do now will fail in 10 years, because they likely won't be living there.
I've personally seen this in a house, and I've had many friends who have had to deal with this. A lot of people don't want to buy a "fixer upper" which has had the same owner for 30 years and hasn't been updated at all, but what would you rather have? A place you can get a little cheaper, gut, and do it right? Or a place that has gone through 7 owners in the same amount of time and has had questionable repairs spackled over more times than you can count? At least with the out-of-date house you likely can see most of the problems. But most buyers seem to prefer the latter and just hope nothing fails behind the walls.
But the paint and decor hides all the sins and its good enough!
Yep. So who cares if the heating and A/C systems were screwed up in installation 3 owners ago and may cost tens of thousands to fix? Look at that new cool sink fixture!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:10PM
I had my home inspected twice. Once by the person the agent recommended and once after the sale after we started noticing problems. Night and day. The one the real estate agent recommended gave the place a huge pass, with exceptions. One was running the electric dryer off an extension cord, one was improper insulation in the attic, and the radon level was high. But oh lucky day, his inspection company was also in the radon mitigation system, so they could fix that right up for us.
Started noticing problems shortly after we bought the place and my father recommended having it inspected again. That inspector (who was also cheaper) did a once over and found mold in the basement (bad enough that it needed professional mitigation), that the radon mitigation system wasn't up to code, the system was running backwards due to an improperly wired circuit (guess they didn't really hire an electrician for that part), numerous outlets were wired backwards and 1/4 were ungrounded, the hot water heater leaked, the A/C leaked, two sinks leaked, mold in 1st floor, direct vent fireplace vented into the basement, dryer vent clogged shut, improperly sized gutters and downspouts, improperly installed siding, the box that attached the electric meter to the house was not attached to the house, asbestos, exterior stud bays with no insulation at all, bad drafts, cracks in the walls and stuck doors (thankfully cosmetic, according to the structural engineer we hired after the inspector pointed it out), and more DIY mistakes in plumbing and electrical than I can count. We literally had a plumber and an electrician go to every room in the house and fix every problem they saw over the course of 10 hours. And those are the problems I could come up with off the top of my head and I'm sure there are more.
So yeah, be sure to get an inspection from an independent source. Heck, because that area is so shady, the recommendation I've seen numerous places is to get it inspected twice by different companies. Another problem that I've discovered through conversations with people is that many companies use inspections as a loss-leader in their other business. Is there other business radon mitigation, mold removal or exterminating? Guess what, you have killer radon/mold/bugs. But don't worry, you can have it fixed before you even close and just knock it off the house price.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:37PM
Cars are the same thing. Oh wow! look how cool that car looks! Oooooo, a nostalgia mobile! oh its fast or trail rated or some other bullshit metric. But after a few years it's a maintenance nightmare. Everything begins to fail and your paying good money to fix stupid shit like leaking gaskets, cracked radiators and intake manifolds made from fucking plastic and electronics that seem to work when they want to or just up and fail completely. But the car looked good and was affordable. I don't want refined interiors. I don't want sleek looks. I don't want good enough. I'd happily sacrifice some luxury and comfort for a vehicle that works for 10 years without major issue.
You need to stop buying American cars then. Japanese cars generally go 10 years easily with no trouble. Cars are lasting longer than ever. 30 years ago, you were lucky if you could get more than 100k miles out of a car. These days, that's middle-aged.
People care more about cost more than anything. How else do you explain those garbage tools that were being sold at harbor freight?
HF's hand tools (non-powered) are very good these days, far better than Crapsman, and really more than good enough for any weekend mechanic. I met a pro mechanic a couple years ago who swore by them in fact, over Snap-On. According to him, the Snap-On stuff's quality had gone down the tubes while the prices were ridiculous, while the HF stuff was just as good and dirt cheap, so if you did break something, it wasn't a problem to just buy a new one. Plus, HF has a Sears-like no-questions-asked return policy on hand tools.
As for the power tools, they've likely been getting better, and the expensive name-brand stuff frequently isn't that much better or longer-lasting. It's a crap-shoot, so for someone who needs a tool for a single DIY job, it can make more sense to save a bunch of money on the HF tool rather than risking more money on something from DeWalt (now owned by Black & Decker) which might not be any better.
Maybe if the supposedly high-quality brands had warranties to match, you could get people to care more about quality. If you're only going to get a 1-year warranty on either the HF tool or the 3x as expensive name-brand tool, what's the point of paying more? Obviously, the expensive brand doesn't stand behind its product.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:47PM
I think a lot of it is that people can't recognize quality anymore. It's hard to make judgments on manufacturing quality if you don't make things.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:28PM
Manufactures realized that people don't give a crap about quality.
A lot of people *do* care about quality, but they aren't qualified to judge it. With a lot of things, there's no easy way to tell if it's high-quality or not until you own it for a long time, to see how long it lasts. It's all too often that people buy some overpriced piece of junk, thinking it's high-quality because it has a high price tag, and then they get burned. Then they stop associating high price with high quality, and just buy the cheap stuff because they don't see why they should pay 3x as much for something if they can't count on it lasting at least 3x as long, and by the time they've figured out the 3x thing was a piece of crap, the warranty has already run out.
But there's still plenty of places where people pay extra for higher quality, or the perception of it at least. Otherwise, name brands like Samsung, BMW, etc. would all be out of business by now, as people would just buy no-name Walmart TVs and Chevies. And don't forget Apple. There's plenty of companies that still command a premium price because their name brand is associated with higher quality (rightly or wrongly). Japanese carmakers have been getting higher prices and enjoying higher resale values for ages because of their reputation for higher quality.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:05PM
I'm modding you up despite an incorrect statement about cars. In the 1970s and earlier, the longest car warrantee was 50,000 miles or 5 years. Now it's twice that. And cars have far more to them than they did back then, like air bags, antilock brakes, rear cameras, far better AC and heat, etc.
Now, other machines, like your washing machines, are indeed built cheaply where they were once built to last. In 1970 tyhe drive in theater I worked in had a refrigerator that had been manufactured in the 1920s, and it was there for use, not for show (it was out of view of the public). I have a vacuum cleaner made in 1954 that still runs.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:37PM
My car experience only goes back to the late 90's. But some of the older GM trucks I've driven lasted a very long time without major issue. Then again, the trucks and cars were two different stories for the most part.
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Wednesday September 28 2016, @08:49PM
What's really happened is that yes, the warranties have lengthened - however, the products are now designed to last just that long. We now know more than enough about materials engineering etc. such that a large company (like a car company) can actually design this in.
Sears and other companies which used to overbuild their tools to match their guarantees now have materials engineers coordinating directly with actuarial staff to set pricing, not to build you the best product, but to scrape by with the very least $$ that will result in a low number of returns for maximum profit.
Back about 40+ years, these companies were designing with pride. Now, the vast majority of products are designed to fail.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:38PM
My car is a 2004 and runs fine. Bought it cheap two years ago and it's needed no maintenance except coolant and oil changes. Cars do last three or four times as long as the old models, despite being far more complex.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:11PM
You just broke the second rule of trolling, do not be obvious.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:40PM
Unfortunately, everything the "troll" said is true.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:32PM
Wow! Did you read the article on CIO.com about how you can save 40% on your IT costs if you Cloud?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:55AM
new business model:
- Burn carbon shipping tons of broken crap to Sweden.
- Get it fixed cheap.
- Ship it away again to be resold.
In all seriousness I think the tax break is a great idea.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:24PM
Harder to implement, easier to "cheat the system," but I'd love to see a tax break (or other, meaningful incentive) for making affordably repairable products. If there are two cars offered on the market, similar initial features and sales price, but one costs $500 per year to maintain for the first 15 years, whereas the other costs $3000 per year due to increased labor of accomplishing the same tasks, only large replacement assemblies made available when small inexpensive parts would accomplish the repair as effectively, single sourced special fluids that are marked up to a thousand dollars for a maintenance change, etc.
Extend this into smaller products where battery replacement can be cheap, or cost more than the purchase of a new device, ditto cracked screen repair, etc.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:46PM
If you'd like a real world example with real numbers we can talk shoes/boots and maybe clothes.
Probably 95% of the population at work wears something like Sketchers or New Balance. Made in China for 50 cents per pair and sold in the USA for $50 a pair. They used to last years, but have been value engineered to increase sales such that they last only six months or so. Out of stupidity or comfort there is a particular model and size of NB shoe that I buy and pretty much exclusively use for track/pavement walking and they last about 100 comfortable miles before the laces rip out or the "pleather" separates or the stitches break. One time the padding around my achillies heel broke and shifted and caused paralyzing pain level of tendonitis until I threw out that pair of shoes (probably only 3 months old, I was pissed). Someone remind me that I'm an idiot for buying Chinese shoes again? It's weird that I'm as old as I am and I haven't found a good source of athletic shoes, I can buy shitty cheap athletic shoes and shitty expensive athletic shoes but where do you buy good athletic shoes, even if you don't care what they cost?
Probably 5% of the population at work wears something like Thorogood boots/shoes. Its the kind of place where if you have to ask how much, just assume you can't afford it, but in practice it would be shocking to spend less than a couple hundred or more than several hundred. They're made in semi-rural central Wisconsin. Due to high quality of materials and construction and QA they arrive fitting perfectly and don't require breaking in unless you're wearing the wrong size. They last about a decade in the office with some light labor. When they need repair or resoling after a decade a place called nushoe takes care of them over the internet for like a hundred bucks (so I'm told, by the time my shoes wear out I want new ones and buying a pair of shoes every other presidential administration is not exactly out of control conspicuous consumption).
I'm wearing some 2 or 3 year old high top Thorogood work boots right now. They look new ish. Obviously the laces only have another year or two left in them. Chinese boots that are 3 years old would look like duct tape mummies. "whadya call three year old Chinese shoes? Barefoot!"
So the annual cost of wearing falling apart Chinese shoes is about $100/yr paid for in semi-annual installments and the annual cost of wearing top quality made-in-wisconsin shoes is about $30/yr paid for entirely up front. And those payment terms on a very large scale across all levels of the economy is why poor people stay poor and wear crappy uncomfortable broken down shoes and why rich(-er) people like me wear stylish indestructible comfortable made in the USA shoes while saying stuff like we're not rich enough yet to shop at walmart and buy crappy Chinese shoes.
Its like that across the economy. Cars, food, clothes, tools, its incredibly expensive to make "poor people choices" but "rich people choices" require cash on the barrel that most people can't swing.
Shirts are another example. You can buy crap at walmart for $10 every quarter that instantly falls apart, or you get pissed off at replacing something every month and buy some Hugo Boss at Nordstroms or whatever and it lasts forever. And looks better. I buy shirts so rarely I don't even know whats cool or a good buy today in the current year, but years ago last time I went shirt shopping I must have been convinced hugo boss was where it was at, in the 00s or whatever. Yeah its like a hundred bucks but if the ten dollar shirt lasts a month and the hundred dollar shirt lasts a couple years I'm all good with that.
I was poor once as a starving student. I know all about walmart products where the stitching unravels after its washed one time, shirts with buttons that fall off in one wearing, cloth that was improperty dyed so it washes out and looks weird after like three washings. Its very expensive to be poor and if I spent money like a poor person I wouldn't be well off for very long... for a very short amount of time I'd own a bunch of crap products, and in months they'd depreciate to zero.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:41PM
I've never heard of Thorogood for boots but I wear Red Wings and it sounds like the quality is comparable. Pay a few hundred bucks for a good pair of boots, after 5 years when they are getting a bit tread barren pay $75 and get them retreaded. My current boots are 7 years old and are now starting to show signs of age but I am pretty hard on them and they have a few good gouges in them from when things have been dropped. I discovered years ago the cheap things cost more in the log run and that I am too poor to buy poor quality.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:42PM
Coming up next on the Soylent News 2016 Fashion Show, VLM compliments Kromagv0 on his good taste in boots and advises the population that he learned the hard way in the army that the difference between happiness and falling out of a road march injured is mostly in the correct selection of socks, and "smartwool" socks cost like $15/pair on sale which sounds insane, but your feet will be creepily comfortable and unblistered and they don't wear out after years of abuse unlike the $2/pair bulk cotton socks that'll leave your feet damp and blistered and wear holes and tear in mere months. It really is a different level of functionality of sock like you can't call cheap cotton socks and smartwool socks the same thing. I like smartwool but any merino-wool-synthetic blend hiking sock is likely similar good.
In other notes, Buddy Jeans are made in Mississippi and a pair cost about the same as Chinese and reliably last about six years of relatively light duty. (always more than half a decade but never a full decade) When I buy jeans at Target or Kohls they only last about two years. Why? How come American Jeans don't cost any more than Chinese jeans yet last three times longer?
Still looking for the wise rich mans suggestion for non-suit pants and athletic shoes.
Something interesting to note is unlike 20 or 30 years ago when I'd just show up at a clothing store and hope for the best, because of the internet there are specific model numbers of specific shoes and pants and stuff that I buy such that most of the clothes in my house arrived via UPS. Maybe I bought my very first pair of smartwool socks at REI but "in the modern era" I tend to replace things using the internet and UPS. Legacy brick and mortar is almost dead to me other than bespoke tailored suit and pants. Even my kids are like that, they want that minecraft teeshirt, not something Target happens to sell today, if its in stock. Retail is just dead.
Maybe you could call it hyper-branding. I no longer buy Nordstrom or Target or whatever, I no longer buy brands, I am specifically a "SW0SW129" sock kind of guy (true story according to Amazon). That's supposedly a light crew hiking sock by smartwool company. Its the kind that's 70% merino wool and the balance artificial fibers.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:25PM
And while we keep spamming with durable fashion..
Fruit of the loom valueweight t-shirts last for years and are dirt cheap (skip the cheaper ones, valueweight is the sweetspot).
I've had six of those in a continous circulation for six years and other than the occasional topping up of the colour (black, so I use detergent for black clothes when topping up) they so far show no sign of wear.
I also ordered three pairs of trousers of Russell Athletic's workwear cargo series at the same time and have had two of them in continous circulation since then as well - only wear of those are slight wear on the inside of the tighs that arose after I got overweight (other than that even the colour is stable).
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:26PM
I wanna talk men's underwear: you know, side slips and dips!
How the hell do you keep everything contained? Especially in your 50's and it all hangs much, much lower (tea bagging the toilet water lower).
Enquiring minds need to know!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:49PM
Get some snug-fitting nylon/spandex women's panties.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:09PM
We're into shoe anecdotes are we? OK. I buy a big pair of no-particular-brand, ankle-high steel toecapped black work boots. They are good for the office, for social occasions, for long walks in muddy fields with the kids and (with a lot of shoe polish and hoping noone is paying too much attention) even good with a suit. Costs me about £50-£100 a go and last me 4 or 5 years at least.
(Score: 2) by Webweasel on Thursday September 29 2016, @10:09AM
Pretty much the same for me, But I grab the trainer looking ones from Wickes in their workwear section. (Trying to have less of a goth image, so I avoid the combat boot style ones. Not that I dress goth, I just wear a lot of black.)
I'm on my 3rd pair in 10 years, I only replace them when they start to look scrappy or leak.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:26PM
So the annual cost of wearing falling apart Chinese shoes is about $100/yr paid for in semi-annual installments and the annual cost of wearing top quality made-in-wisconsin shoes is about $30/yr paid for entirely up front. And those payment terms on a very large scale across all levels of the economy is why poor people stay poor and wear crappy uncomfortable broken down shoes and why rich(-er) people like me wear stylish indestructible comfortable made in the USA shoes while saying stuff like we're not rich enough yet to shop at walmart and buy crappy Chinese shoes.
While I'd like to agree with you, aside from the obvious exaggeration, I don't think what you say is true of products across the board. And I certainly don't think it's true of most "rich(-er) people." I personally try to buy durable products that will last a lifetime (literally) when possible, too, but I often realize that the pricier products are marketed mostly on branding, style, and superficial BS rather than a significant increase in quality/durability. So, for an increasing number of products, the cost-benefit analysis actually begins to swing in the direction of "buy cheap(er)" (though maybe not cheapest). Yes, you might get a product that lasts 2-3 times as long, but if it costs 10 times as much (and you're mostly paying for the style), it's no longer worth it.
But plenty of "rich(-er)" people will buy the more expensive one as a status symbol -- "looking good" is more important to their persona and is more worth it than the money they're losing.
Shirts are another example. You can buy crap at walmart for $10 every quarter that instantly falls apart, or you get pissed off at replacing something every month and buy some Hugo Boss at Nordstroms or whatever and it lasts forever. And looks better. I buy shirts so rarely I don't even know whats cool or a good buy today in the current year, but years ago last time I went shirt shopping I must have been convinced hugo boss was where it was at, in the 00s or whatever. Yeah its like a hundred bucks but if the ten dollar shirt lasts a month and the hundred dollar shirt lasts a couple years I'm all good with that.
And this is where I have to start calling BS. Yeah, crappy Walmart shirts that literally fall apart at the seams are a poor investment (and look terrible). But from personally having sampled a large variety of shirts over the years -- from the $10-20 ones at the cheap giant store to the $100+ ones, I have to say again you're unlikely to get a return on your investment. Inevitably, shirts will eventually fray at the edges (collars, cuffs, around buttons, etc.). This is a function of material type and has little to do with how well the seams were sown, and there's a definite limit to how strong the weaving can be on those edges to prevent fraying. The reality is that your cheap polyester blend will wear better and longer than a 100% cotton (or linen or whatever) shirt which will start fraying within a few years of heavy use.
Since I've started buying the more expensive, more "stylish" (often just better fit) and "better quality" dress shirts, I've accumulated a closet full of shirts with slightly frayed collars, cuffs, etc. At that point, if I could find a tailor who would do it, I could have the collars turned or have them recuffed like people used to do back in the olden days, but the cost for such repairs these days is quite high (and you need someone who knows what they're doing and pays attention to detail, or your shirt will end up looking stupid). So, I can either pay $30-40 for a tailor to deal with the frayed edges and maybe get another couple years, or I buy a new $100 shirt. Meanwhile, some of the poly-blend shirts I have from the late 1990s still barely show that sort of wear -- granted, they were from a reasonable department store and not the "Walmart special," but still.
Clothing gets worn out. That's just a fact of life. Years ago, people had tailors who could replace bits of it for a reasonable fee and give it a few more years of life, but it's generally not worth it anymore. Yes, buying the "Walmart special" may not be the best deal if something literally falls apart, but maybe spending just a little more for some mid-grade stuff is probably the "sweet spot" for something that is ultimately disposable like clothing... if all you care about is durability. Style, though -- you'll probably pay a much greater premium for.
Your examples would be better tailored (no pun intended) if you focused on more durable goods, like furniture, tools, kitchen equipment (e.g., pans, knives), even appliances. Appliances back in the day had parts wore out, but they could basically be repaired to last a lifetime. No more. I have a Kitchenaid mixer I inherited from my mother that is nearly 50 years old and still works great -- much better than the newer models from the same company which I've used. If you could actually find a product like that these days (and they are hard to find), yes, obviously the higher cost would be worth it (when spread out over the decades) compared to a cheap knockoff.
The problem is that it's difficult to evaluate such products today when the default characteristic of most products is "disposable." Even if you had a friend who bought Brand X 20 years ago and the thing still works, does Brand X still maintain the same quality in the products? And you simply can't know without actually buying the product... so what happens 5 years down the road when it falls apart, and you're out the 10 times greater cost you paid for it rather than the much cheaper knockoff that might have only lasted 2-3 years?
Bottom line -- I wish what you said was true, but in reality it isn't for a lot of products these days. And I really don't think the failure to buy $100 shirts at Nordstrom is what keeps people in the poorhouse.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:59PM
I often realize that the pricier products are marketed mostly on branding, style, and superficial BS rather than a significant increase in quality/durability.
I would agree with you and extend the argument to name names such that Sketcher and New Balance used to be good shoes but are now just overpriced generics. There's no point in paying $75 for a $25 shoe with a fancy name tag.
But there do exist substantially better products on the market, on some markets anyway, which seem to cost more up front in general while costing much less over time.
And I really don't think the failure to buy $100 shirts at Nordstrom is what keeps people in the poorhouse.
Ah but its a way of life. I have a top of the line sub-compact Japanese commuter car that'll easily get me 200K miles and gets great mileage and needs no maintenance and nothing breaks. People get in the poorhouse by spending the same money on a very low end larger vehicle that falls apart quickly and requires a lot of expensive maint. Or they spend money they don't have, on something they can't afford, to impress people they don't care about.
High efficiency furnace, air conditioner, water heater, wall/ceiling insulation, windows, all this stuff adds up resulting in I have more spending money over the long term precisely because I'm not cheap.
Anecdotally I could get a lemon here or there, but even that individual anecdotal lemon is still more affordable because of the on average effect of buying good stuff everywhere else. Lets say all 2015 Toyota transmissions simultaneously blow in 2026. Well, good news for me is the insulation I added to my attic balances it out for me in the long run... not so much for a poor person who's out higher heating bills AND needs to somehow simultaneously pay for a new transmission.
(Score: 1) by wolfinator on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:32PM
The problem is that it's difficult to evaluate such products today when the default characteristic of most products is "disposable." Even if you had a friend who bought Brand X 20 years ago and the thing still works, does Brand X still maintain the same quality in the products? And you simply can't know without actually buying the product... so what happens 5 years down the road when it falls apart, and you're out the 10 times greater cost you paid for it rather than the much cheaper knockoff that might have only lasted 2-3 years?
I think you hit the nail on the head here. One of the most exasperating experiences in the world for me is to buy a 'reputable' brand or product, only to discover the secret 'gotcha' that was cost-engineered in such that it self-destructs a bit outside the return period.
Sometimes it's been done very recently, and online reviews and opinions haven't caught on. Nothing like buying something based on set of 3 year old reviews, only to discover a key part has been downgraded.
Another downside to buying something very durable: some things don't need to be durable, or you're not sure if you need durability when you buy. A good example for me is a tent for camping. I'm a casual, single-season camper - am I going to use this tent more than 6 times? If I don't, paying 5x as much for a durable quality tent is a total waste of money.
On the other hand, if I buy a cheap one and it falls apart on the 3rd use, I'll be quite upset.
These trade-offs are hard to make. I'm trying to make a personal shift in my life towards buying fewer things, but using the things I buy to their fullest. However, some things just don't make sense to buy quality - especially if you're only going to use them a few times.
(Some might reply that the correct response is buy those things used. That's certainly what my parents did. Well, I could write a book about the follies of Craigslist...)
(Score: 1) by Uncle_Al on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:36PM
"One of the most exasperating experiences in the world for me is to buy a 'reputable' brand or product, only to discover the secret 'gotcha' that was cost-engineered in such that it self-destructs a bit outside the return period."
Rockport shoes
bought by Adidas, turned to crap, sold to New Balance / Berkshire Hathaway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockport_(company) [wikipedia.org]
Looking for a replacement brand.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:31PM
My local grocery store sells "reader glasses" - pack of 3 for $15, or slightly more stylish looking ones for $20/pair. When the first $20 pair fell apart after 6 months, I figured I just abused them and got another. When that pair broke after 3 days of light use, I took them back to the retail point and bitched to their face (actually, I let my wife do it, but same effect) until they gave me a replacement.
Point being, let the retailers know you care... it can't be any worse than silently just buying another piece of junk.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:00PM
Brand X might have sucked 20 years ago too, and your friend just happened to buy the one product they ever made that was any good.
The problem with looking at old stuff that still works and comparing it to what you find today, is that essentially everything you look at that's old will still be in working order. Stuff gets to be old because it lasts! There was crap too: you just won't see it because the crap all broke and was thrown away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:05AM
Yes, this. Old furniture is the same way -- there was plenty of crap sold 100+ years ago, made from paperboard and other shit, and it's basically all gone now. What survives today is the high quality stuff from back then.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:27PM
I was once a poor, starving student, but I did travel to Europe, and I took an interest in getting a new suit. I shopped in Italy and Germany, but ultimately waited until I got home to Miami to really buy one. Being a starving student, none of the "real" suits fit me, because I was neither short, nor fat enough to fit into them... but, eventually, I found a very nicely styled new suit in a synthetic material for a great price: $220, and since it was a new shipment they actually still had a copy of my size (no buyers in Florida would ever replace the tall-thin size after it sold.)
A decade later, my suit is still looking reasonably good, but I'm at a show with an Italian sales guy, and he's got a really sharp looking sport coat - natural materials like silk blend, very nice. 8 hours later, he's been sitting in chairs with his suit coat on and it looks like he just pulled it from a laundry bag - horribly wrinkled... meanwhile, my cheap synthetic (that looks real from any distance more than about 3' away, closer if your eyes have aged) looks basically like it did when I bought it 10 years earlier... wouldn't need a pressing or cleaning - basically ever. There are some very good things about "cheap, synthetic" materials - if they're used well.
But, about the shoes, yeah, I gave up on "mall shoes" of almost every variety for just those reasons, probably 20 years ago. My present favorites are OluKai loafers, though they can get squeaky if you get them too wet - still very comfortable and at 3 years old, my first pair is still looking decent.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:34PM
A friend of mine used to work security for shoe releases in a big American city, with high number of working poor. People show up in huge crowds, to buy limited stock of the Nike Ultra Purple Limited Edition or whatever; typically poor people, who wear these very expensive, stylish, limited availability shoes for a few months, then dump them for the next ones. People who aren't there to buy show up to see who is buying. A lot of people just show up for the atmosphere, apparently.
Some people are resellers, pick them up, sell them overpriced on e-bay.
Not talking $100/pair here. These can cost way more; exact price is all over the map though. I hadn't known this was a thing. In practice, most of them won't last a year under real wear.
You needed guards, because gangs and occassionally lone punks, would try to steal the shoes or fight one another to impress everyone else at the event. Not many of them really think the shoes are that great, as far as I can tell- they seem more interested in what owning them says about them, or what it encourages others to think.
A lot of people are the same way about phones, too. Used to sell those myself.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:48PM
These are the boots I wear (head turning):
http://www.tingleyrubber.com/p/metatarsal-guard-boot/footwear_steel-toe?pp=24 [tingleyrubber.com]
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:54PM
Harder to implement, easier to "cheat the system," but I'd love to see a tax break (or other, meaningful incentive) for making affordably repairable products.
We seem to have lost the thread (sorry, no pun intended) a bit in the whole shirt and sock discussions. But this is an important point. Often the problem isn't just that people prefer throwing stuff out rather than repairing it -- a lot of products these days are manufactured in such a way that repairs are difficult if not impossible.
Unless Sweden works to get manufacturers to create repairable products, incentivizing repairs isn't particularly useful.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:38PM
One of my bigger peeves recently are car wiper blade replacements. Time was, a $3 pair of blades would get you decent wiper performance for a year or two... hell, I wouldn't mind paying $6 a pair, but no, we have to sell "labor saving" universal replacements that include the pressure structure for $12 and up - upwards of $20 for anything decent. The retail channel has abandoned the low cost alternatives, not because there's no consumer demand, but because there's no profit in it.
I'm all in favor of profit, but when there's a low cost product that does the job well, don't make up some "labor saving" BS excuse for why you have now jacked up the cost to the consumer 10x for the same functional item.
Like when the children's cough syrup companies watered down their formula, charged the same, and told the public "we expect one bottle to provide relief for an entire bout of the flu, just as we did the previous one." At least they got theirs: now nobody buys their product at all.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:32PM
I agree-- fixing something broken almost always saves you money, and you might learn something at the same time! (Or you may learn how to fix the next item, since the first one is now irrevokably broken...)
Items aren't the only things that you can try to fix on the cheap. Home repairs can be really easy if you simply look up something first... there is no wizard to run to simply fix broken stuff at home; often you have to roll your sleeves up and use the command line. But with that in mind, home repairs are often a lot easier to do than IT stuff. I'd rather replace the kitchen faucet than spend 10 hours removing Windows 10... Even if MS paid me to do it!
Do it wrong and you may flood the place, but you probably will see that very quickly and put a stop to it (maybe even to call for assistance). Secure windows or the network wrong, and you'll probably suffer more damage and realize it well after the damage is done.
A lot of this is only hard at first because we geeks often by circumstance (or even choice) have little experience weilding hammers and saws and so on; it's really not that bad and doesn't have to consume all of your time if you break a project into parts (but don't break the parts involved in the project.. that is bad, and I've done that too. I might have made something even more broke, but ended up so much richer in experience...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:43AM
Rarely do I suffer lacerations to my epidermis when working on home/small-business IT stuff, neither do I have mystery substances stuck to my skin or under my fingernails for days after a job.
That being said, yes, home repairs generally are pretty simple and there's regularly more than one way to get the job done.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:33PM
But tax breaks for disposables only makes sense on paper. In practice, the manufacturers can - and do in automobiles - work around this by overpricing parts.
There's also practical issues when it comes to electronics becoming more efficient and better performing over the years so even a battery swap in your phone is often not worth the trouble.
Overall, not sure it's worth the trouble.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:57PM
But tax breaks for disposables only makes sense on paper. In practice, the manufacturers can - and do in automobiles - work around this by overpricing parts.
Then 3rd parties create aftermarket parts to fill the void. That's what happened with cars, at least. Then the manufacturers try to invoke copyright to prevent this, and then Right to Repair laws get passed.
In computers and electronics are currently in the copyright phase, but I'm hoping people will eventually get to the last phase. I know some non-technical people are increasingly complaining about the stupidity of people like Apple forcing them to do certain things, but they haven't quite made the logical connection to DRM yet.
There's also practical issues when it comes to electronics becoming more efficient and better performing over the years so even a battery swap in your phone is often not worth the trouble.
Overall, not sure it's worth the trouble.
If (after including externalities) it is cheaper and more efficient to replace a product rather than repairing it, then great. Just be sure to include the externalities. In your comparison, how much are you "cheating" by being able to illegally (and immorally) throw your Lithium Ion battery away in the trash can?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:52PM
In your comparison, how much are you "cheating" by being able to illegally (and immorally) throw your Lithium Ion battery away in the trash can?
There's no shortage of places that'll take your old batteries for recycling: Target, Lowe's, Batteries Plus, etc.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:40PM
The problem with repairing electronics is how quickly it gets so darn complex and expensive.
Illustration: My mom telling me that the cordless phone drops calls sometimes after "a little while". The thing has a handful of ASICs, and no visible damage. Designed ten years ago, no docs, long obsolete...
Heck, even my company doesn't always know how fix RMAs, even with the designers right there...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:19AM
For portable phones, try replacing the battery. We had one that dropped calls and new batteries fixed it -- this one used NiMH AAA cells, for one source, Harbor Freight sells them for a reasonable price.
Going forward, the next time I buy a portable phone I'm going to check for generic batteries like these AAA cells. The "manufacturer lock-in" battery with wires and a little header connector is really annoying (although I did have good luck with a cheap replacement battery like this, shipped direct from China).
Beyond that, I agree, no point in trying to repair circuitry. Well, maybe a connector that came loose due to a bad solder joint...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:02PM
It should be combined with a tax on importing non-repairable products. Things like printers where the ink is more expensive than the printer is a great example of something that should be stopped as well. Make the manufacturer pay for safe disposal of goods.
Me, I fix pretty much everything. Current fridge twice, current dishwasher 4 times, current oven twice, etc. Prices for parts for all those repairs have been less than $50 combined. I sharpen disposable utility knife blades. Old clothes that don't get donated get used as rags until they pretty much dissolve. Anything I don't need anymore I give away of FreeCycle (does everyone know about FreeCycle). My kitchen table was found in someone's garbage at the side of the road ... gorgeous birdseye maple when refinished.
The downside is that my female-unit says "You're the reason we can't have anything *new*". I take that as a complement though. People are killing the planet and most don't see it.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:31PM
Sometimes you find the best things out for trash day: perfectly good stuff that needs no fixing at all. They just got new (or got new given to them as a present) and threw old out (me, i use new, but keep old in case new breaks and you need old to replace it or for parts).
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:22PM
I got my current gas barbecue (replacing my cheap 15 year old one) out of the trash. It has steel burners that are about 3/8 inch thick steel ... it's very high quality. The burners were plugged up with earwigs, making flames come out the front. 20 minutes to disassemble and clean, and I have a new high quality barbecue. What made me really happy was that someone took *my* old one from the end of the driveway.
(Score: 2) by Webweasel on Thursday September 29 2016, @10:06AM
That's how I got my current amplifier.
Just a low end Cambridge audio unit, but it does the job.
I was taking rubbish to the local dump and spotted it in the electronics bin. Asked the council guy if I could have it, he said no due to liability reasons.
Fair enough, easy come easy go.
I did several trips that day and the next one, as I pull up he knocks on my window "Open your boot mate" and slipped the amp in for me. Thanks!
Put a new plug on it, it works fine. Did some research and found a pair of 1967 Celistion ditton speakers on ebay for £50.
So I now have a pretty kickass sound system with some of the best classic/prog rock speakers ever made. At full volume, they are far too loud for my living room, but the dynamic range on them is so good watching movies at low volume is a great experience. Larger drivers for the win.
Hmmm I should get a pair for the gaming PC....
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:32AM
We need more people like you, good on you Nerdfest.
You get mad props for dropping the FreeCycle name, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:41PM
Sweden will have an entire country of annoying backpacking/bike shop people who insist on fixing old junk.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:17PM
Imagine how much better life would be for new parents without disposable diapers.
And lets get rid of disposable condoms in order to create new market opportunities for cloth diapers.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Absolutely.Geek on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:49AM
To be fair reusable nappies are awesome; the key is getting ones that fit. We have never had a leak when using well fitting nappies; and we have had some extremely full loads...the kind that slosh when you pick up the baby.
We use %20 [soylentnews.org];" rel="url2html-1220">http://www.realnappies.co.nz/>; we tried the birth to potty training ones and they suck they don't fit well on small babies so they do leak and they look terrible because they are too big for the baby.
Disposable nappies on the other hand suck; they stink up your bin and for some reason get a pass when they do leak; which is often according to friends that use them. They key with reusable nappies is do the washing EVERY day.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 2) by Absolutely.Geek on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:54AM
well that link didn't work.... http://www.realnappies.co.nz/ [realnappies.co.nz]
Oh and the other thing reusable nappies are CHEAP; way cheaper then the disposable ones. Especially in NZ going by the numbers by using reusable nappies and wipes we will save approx $3500NZD over two years. When we decided to go with reusable nappies we brought a high quality washing machine for $1500 F&P Clean Smart 8.0kg); our old one was a cheap piece of crap that occasionally chewed clothes; so that was a win.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:22PM
The cost of disposing of certain items needs to get built into the cost of purchasing it.
For example, you buy that easy and cheap to replace computer for $100. Think nothing of throwing it away. It should be recycled. Phones too. The cost of recycling should be built into the purchase price. With maybe some fee you can collect back for turning it in for recycling.
There are problems with this idea. But it would lead to a lot more recycling of precious metals and other things that end up in landfills.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:36PM
This.
Pay upfront for disposing, get free disposal instead of dumping dangerous stuff in a field to dodge (inherently unjust) taxes on waste. If you pay the right price for things, including their environmental impact, repairing vs replacing, integrating vs using modules, becomes easier to solve for the best.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:18PM
Welcome to Canada (BC at least). Buy electronics(etc), there is a end of life fee tacked on.
And the dump now has at least a dozen different categories of recycling bins, now free.
Of course, after all the paying and sorting and collecting, it may get dumped in the same place, but baby steps...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:58PM
Imagine if the used electronics were neatly stacked for some period before dumping, and anyone were allowed to come and pick them up for free before then went into the landfill?
Would there be a surge in Linux PCs? Poor people getting Linux PCs? Laptops?
Even for non-working PCs, it's like a car junkyard, people could come and get specific parts they need. A DVD drive. Power supply. Processor chip, hard drive full of valuable data, etc.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 28 2016, @08:14PM
Well, computers are the rotten fish that stinks up the recycle bin.
Realistically, not much is recyclable from a computer, some scrap steel, tiny amounts of other metals, crappier plastic, and a mobo full of toxic crap that will end up in a land-fill somewhere.
So running them seems attractive, but realistically the power draw may not be worth even doing that.
Getting much utility beyond a web surfing machine out of it is unlikely. If its not a recent-ish laptop, its just not worth running it.
We have to be careful about championing a false frugality here. Sometime, this is because nothing else can be afforded. But often its just faulty economics.
I know people who insist on burning through their supply of 100 watt incandescent light bulbs to "save" $1.25 per bulb rather than replace it with a $4 LED 17 watt bulb and never need to replace it in their life time. Sunk costs they say, ignoring operational and maintenance costs.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:02PM
You will actually find repairs for products that are old enough (and durable enough) to be "classics" without tax incentives exclusively on labor, and it seems Sweden operates without a minimum wage which opens up the market to weekend tinks who don't have a floor on labor costs to make repairs worthwhile above a certain level (not to mention gear that may not be valuable enough to repaired per se, but is repurposed into other uses).
The problem with the proposal is thinking any two products of the same vintage have the same value in being salvaged. It might be cleaner just to lower the taxes on used items across the board, and let the market sort out what products are worth saving. You have "cheap" stuff being well-designed used stuff instead of entry-level items made at a price point.
Not to grouse, but didn't Sweden pretty much standardized disposable with IKEA?
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:37PM
I've been to Sweden twice and found two very different countries.
The first time was in 1991 and I was amazed and impressed by how socially advanced the country was. People with needs were very well looked after, including the poor, sick and students. Working conditions were very good and very flexible. And their commitment to the environment was second to none, right down to forcing all drink manufacturers to use identical bottles for their products which would be collected, washed and then re-used by any drink manufacturer next time, with just a different lid to identify their product. That country was very special.
I went back last year. A very different country where the "rights of the individual" have displaced the "rights of society" such that most individuals now earn comparatively less and have far worse working conditions. And the "rights of companies" to brand their products overrode the "rights of the environment" such that re-usable generic packaging was replaced by disposable curvy rubbish (looking at you Coca-Cola).
While Sweden is still a beautiful country and the people are still wonderful, I'm hoping that this marks a reversion of form and that Sweden forges ahead once more to become the social leaders of the world.
(Score: 2) by Webweasel on Thursday September 29 2016, @10:13AM
Sounds like a description of globalism to me.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956