reuse & repair

[eternomi]

How come the US culture is based on "throw it away; buy it new" mentality?

I mean I realize the economy is structured that way. It is cheaper to buy new than try to repair the old. I am not talking about wear & tear. If you use something for 5-10 years and you need a new one, that's inevitable. But things often break before their lifetime is up, and usually a small fix would extend the lifecycle of the product.. but we are almost forced to throw it out and buy now. That's a HUGE waste of all kinds of resources.

Some companies do some refurbushing of certain products to a certain extent, but overall, it is a "throw it away; buy it new" mentality.

How can this be turned around? Would it be possible to turn it around such that repair and reuse is cheaper than buying new? Any ideas?

[Baltar]

This happened because manufacturing was outsourced to countries with cheap human labor -- most things sold in the US are made in China these days. Labor in the US is very expensive comparatively, so if it costs $100 to repair a broken VCR and just about the same amount to buy a new one, why bother? If everything was manufactured within the country things would be very different.

This won't change until the foreign economies equalize with that of the US, and that probably will never happen. What's most likely going to happen in the future is products will be produced mostly with computerized/robotic labor at which point it will make even less sense to pay for fixing something because product prices will drop even more, while human labor cost will remain high.

[eternomi]

Baltar,

You are probably right. It's just that it is such a waste! And in a way, it is incredible that it is cheaper to build a brand new thing than fix what has already been made! That just boggles my mind. There has to be a way to fix this problem.

[ahimel]

The reason the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in the city on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

I now have a sticky note attached to my debit card that says, "Boots?"

So every time I make a purchase, I remember that not only will I save money in the long run by buying high-quality, I'll also enjoy the intervening short-run more.

You can find good products that will last you years or even generations; you just have to look harder for them because they aren't advertised.

[jkmuller]

Certainly part of our throw-away culture is an effect of the unparalleled consumer culture we have today in America. Most people are simply not interested in old things, except in rare instances. Also, when it comes to electronics, things go obsolete so quickly now that people are forced to upgrade, unlike with other goods. But hopefully, people will soon come to their senses when they realize we are already standing knee-deep in pollution. Sooner or later it has to give.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by outback

Baltar,

You are probably right. It's just that it is such a waste! And in a way, it is incredible that it is cheaper to build a brand new thing than fix what has already been made! That just boggles my mind. There has to be a way to fix this problem.

I agree that it's a huge waste, but that's how a free market economy works. Right now it's cheaper to build something new because the labor that's used to build it is cheaper than the labor that's used to fix it. It can be built in China, but you have to fix it in the US. Cost of living in the US is a lot higher than in China though, and that means one must charge accordingly more for a repair service. I think the only thing that can be done is shipping the broken items out to countries where it's cost effective to fix and sell them. Sounds like a good business opportunity. In fact something like this is being done with old cell phones. Check out Recycle My Cell Phone.

EARTHWORKS has teamed up with CollectiveGood to either refurbish or recycle your old cell phone using the highest environmental and social standards.

Cell phones and accessories received in working order can be recycled back into reuse, the highest form of recycling. If the cell phone is broken, but has useful parts, CollectiveGood will cannibalize it, and create working phones from the scraps. These affordable refurbished cell phones help bridge the digital divide and improve the quality of life for people in the developing world who purchase them.

[eternomi]

In fact something like this is being done with old cell phones.

It might be slightly more complicated than that. I think those cell phones are in working condition. Maybe the battery died, or got too old for the original user's taste. Even refurbished products are mostly in working condition. Either the buyer wasn't satisfied, or the company was able to fix the problem (yay!), but can't really sell it as brand new any more.

My concern is with products that are truely broken, but need a $1 part replaced to start working again... You are absolutely correct about labor being cheaper outside of US, but those people only know how to assemble. They probably have no clue how the thing works.

Maybe we need better testing tools which can figure out what's wrong with something without too much human intervention.

[Still Growing]

There are some valid points made here:
1. Its cheaper to sometimes buy it new than to fix the item
2. Its often better to buy quality that will last longer

You know, we Americans are are consumer society. Its terrible how the Average America spends more than they make. A few years ago the average American had several thousand in credit card debt while the average Japanese had tens of thousands in savings. But whats interesting is that all of this personal debt is actually good for our economy... Strange huh?

Have you ever wondered why the US has risen so fast. Is it because we are so hard working? So are many other countries.

Only in the past 5 years have many Japanese starting even using credit cards.

The money circulates so fast here in the US. We're our own best customer and now we are China's best customer.

There are some countries where the consumers are so tight with each other bartering, pulling the prices down and trying to reuse that the circulation never allows them to rise up as an economy.

I'm sure there are those reading this that could make some valid arguments on this but take a look at Miami.

Aside from those wealthy moving in, lets look at the locals. The price on everything gets beat down and beat down and in the end the prices are great for most locally manufactured items but nobody is making any money. All you economists out there can argue that if you pay less then you will save but when your market's buyers won't pay more then you're doomed.

People work even hard, buy their materials even lower but they have to do three times the work for the same profit.

Think Miami is a bad example, how about Turkey? How about India? A lot of talented and very smart people but its all about bargaining and getting the prices down. Yet their economy can never flourish.

My point is that when you throw away that broken VCR don't feel so bad. From the ground it came and the ground it will go. You will save your money and time, somebody else will save money and time and the net gain will be for the economy as a whole.

[Ibanez]

I think it also has to do with financial education. I mean if you want to learn about money, it's pretty much up to yourself. School won't teach, probably wouldn't want that to happen anyway, parents will only probably say, save some money each paycheck. But if you want to learn more it's up to you.

We are also taught materialism in a way, so with that consumerism is expected. Some grow out of it, others live by it.

[WanderingOak]

I know as far as vehicles are concerned, I am probably never going to buy another new car. They are so complex and overdesigned nowdays, that nobody knows how to work on them properly. Case in point, I have an '88 Chevy pickup and a 2000 Hyundai. I'm fairly certain that a trained monkey could work on the truck, while the car requires specialized tools and knowledge beyond the capabilities of the average shadetree mechanic (or zookeeper). The truck has 315K miles and is still going strong. Repair parts are plentiful, dirt cheap, and there are plenty still on the road and in junkyards. Meanwhile, the car had 200K miles, and has eaten it's own transmission three times so far. Parts are expensive, hard to find, and many mechanics and junkyards in the US won't touch Hyundais. I paid $2K for the truck back in 2001, while I paid $13K for the car, new in 2000. Of the two vehicles, which one has held it's value better, and which do you think I am going to keep? The only reason I still have the car is that I have 100 mile commute and my truck is not very good on gas.

As far as consumer electronics goes, in most cases it is cheaper to replace than repair, usually because there is no support or repair network in place. Basicly, if it is out of warranty, you would be better off buying a new VCR. Then again, with VCRs going for 30 *** nowadays, why bother even trying to fix it? If you are an electronics hobbiest, the dead VCR could be dismantled for all kinds of interesting toys. iPods are sealed at the factory, but if you do enough research on the 'net, you could crack the seal and figure out how to replace the battery, etc. Of course, don't tell Apple, because if anything else breaks, they will say it is your fault.

[eternomi]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

From the ground it came and the ground it will go.

All valid points except for this one... Where did you ever see a VCR coming out of the ground? And shoving them into the ground is certainly not a solution!

I am not really saying "let's not consume, and save all our pennies". All I am suggesting is that this "throw it away and don't worry about it" mentality is killing the environment. There has to be a way to reuse the materials. Perhaps there is a better way to recycle effectively and efficiently.

You might say "if there was, we would have invented it already". That's the same person who said back in the 1800s that everything has already been invented.

Maybe there hasn't been a "profitable" way to recycle thus far, so people avoided it like the plague, but this will ultimately have to be invented or the situation completely avoided... or it'll get to a point where we have no more place to put unwanted stuff.

Earth is huge, but eventually, it will run out of raw materials. Maybe this nanotechnology business will have a solution for this.

[Brutha]

The goverment could force companys to give longer warranties.
If you have a warranty you will use it instead of buying a new one.

[Doku]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The goverment could force companys to give longer warranties.
If you have a warranty you will use it instead of buying a new one.

Right. Like we need MORE government intervention.

[WanderingOak]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The goverment could force companys to give longer warranties.
If you have a warranty you will use it instead of buying a new one.

If that happened, that $30.00 VCR would cost $90.00, and still be just as shoddily constructed. My Hyundai had a 100K mile warranty, and the local dealer did NOT want to honor it. They wanted me to buy a new car when it had a persistant 'check engine' light for three months that they couldn't fix. They eventually disabled the light, and I didn't figure it out for a few months afterwards. Of course they denied everything and I couldn't prove that they did anything. The cause of the light being on- mice chewing on a sensor wire.

[Brutha]

Right. Like we need MORE government intervention.

Either you like the way it is at the moment, then goverment intervention is not necessary.
If you don't want the way it is at the moment, goverment intervention is necessary.

In Europe we get more and more laws that force companys to give warrantys and recycle their stuff.
Therefore we don't have that mentality that much.

You can like the "throw it away; buy it new" because it is cheaper. But if you don't like it the way to change it is goverment intervention.

@WanderingOak:
You didn't buy a new car but kept the old one. If that is the target of the warranty the goal is accomplished.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Either you like the way it is at the moment, then goverment intervention is not necessary.
If you don't want the way it is at the moment, goverment intervention is necessary.

In Europe we get more and more laws that force companys to give warrantys and recycle their stuff.
Therefore we don't have that mentality that much.

You can like the "throw it away; buy it new" because it is cheaper. But if you don't like it the way to change it is goverment intervention.

Government intervention is almost never good for the economy. The only exceptions are things like anti-trust laws but some people oppose even that. Forcing companies to provide longer warranties would simply raise prices, as WanderingOak said. At the same time it wouldn't solve anything, and in fact would create more problems. First of all the company wouldn't be fixing the product anyway, they'd just send you a new one. It's not cost effective for them to fix it.

Second of all there's the problem of what happens if the product has already been discontinued. They're forced to fix it if it's possible, or they have to send you a different model. Most likely they'd send you a new model because that would be cheaper. Basically longer warranties cost the company a lot more money, which means they have to charge consumers more money. This hurts the economy while not solving anything. I'm not saying that the way things are right now is particularly great, but the only viable solution is to figure out how to recycle things, not force companies to work inefficiently.

[Brutha]

Forcing companies to provide longer warranties would simply raise prices, as WanderingOak said.

While it would raise prices, it wouldn't raise them as much as buying the warranty at the moment in the US.
Check international prices for this.

Most likely they'd send you a new model because that would be cheaper.

Even then they need to do something with the old models like removing the working parts of them and using them for new models.
A company has also no problem to ship those old models to a low wage country to do this.
It costs less per unit to fix 100 units then to fix one. The customer can only fix one at a time, the company can fix all unit therefore it is cheaper for the company to fix them, then it is for a single customer.
If a company has to provide warranties it has to think about dealing either dealing with more old models or making models that don't break as often.

Companys get an incentive to invent practices of recycling those broken models and produce products that don't break. At presents the company profits when a unit breaks because the custumer buys a new one.

Basically longer warranties cost the company a lot more money, which means they have to charge consumers more money. This hurts the economy while not solving anything.

While the customer has to pay more money for a single item, he doesn't risk having to buy the same item again.
In total the price of those rebuys gets distributed over all customers.

If a company build a product in such a way that it breaks before the lifetime is up, why should the buyer pay for the new product? Wouldn't it more reasonable that the company pays for the new product?

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If a company build a product in such a way that it breaks before the lifetime is up, why should the buyer pay for the new product? Wouldn't it more reasonable that the company pays for the new product?

If I understand you correctly, then this reasoning doesn't work because it requires someone (like the government) to decide what the lifetime of an product is. For instance let's say that the lifetime of shoes is decided to be five years by the government. One company makes low quality cheap shoes, and another one makes high quality expensive shoes. The expensive shoes last the whole five years due to being high quality, but the cheap ones get worn out multiple times during the five years. If the cheap shoe company had to replace the pair of shoes every year for five years, it would provide absolutely no incentive to make the cheap shoes. Thus only expensive ones would be available. Next thing of course the government would have to do is set a maximum price on shoes (so the poor can afford them), making the shoe industry unprofitable and killing it.

In other words, you can't set a universal lifetime for a product because its lifetime depends on its quality. And its quality depends on its price. There must always be cheap and expensive alternatives available so that there's something everyone can afford. Also, someone mentioned that for tech products it usually doesn't make sense to fix them due to the rate of innovation. For instance if you have a VCR that breaks, you'll probably want to get a newer one or a DVD player instead. It also doesn't make much sense to fix computers after a few years. Some computer parts like hard drives can't be repaired at all.

[Still Growing]

Yea, I don't know where I got that metal came from the earth... I guess it would be better for the environment for us to burn it like they do in Europe instead of burying it. Even though it would be terrible for our air we could all feel good that we are "recycling".

Anyway the thread is about "to reuse or to repair". I say to reuse when it suits you and to repair when it suits you.

If someone thinks they should pay $120 to fix a $90 VCR just so it doesn't get discarded, this is rediculous.

As a society we do consume too much.

There are a lot of people who yell at SUV drivers from their little hybrids and they jet back and forth between NY & LA wagging their fingers. The energy it takes to cool their 20K sq. ft homes alone use more resources a year that that SUV.

The nature of this question to "re use or repair" does address how one should utilize their resources for the betterment of us as a society or for mankind as a whole.

What I speak of is that consumption is good for a group of people when their is a net gain within that society. Our trade deficity is so large now that we are becoming indepted to China.

People discuss about China holding the currency artificially but what they don't see is how they are doing it. To keep the dollar strong they are holding our dollars in the forms of loans to us for new construction. This my friends, is completely legal and ethical but it is also how your neighbor will get rich and you will become poor in time.

Read Buffet's article about Squanderville and Thriftville and you will see what is a larger topic than Iraq and the environment combined in terms of immediate problems facing us as a society.

Originally Posted by outback

All valid points except for this one... Where did you ever see a VCR coming out of the ground? And shoving them into the ground is certainly not a solution!

I am not really saying "let's not consume, and save all our pennies". All I am suggesting is that this "throw it away and don't worry about it" mentality is killing the environment. There has to be a way to reuse the materials. Perhaps there is a better way to recycle effectively and efficiently.

You might say "if there was, we would have invented it already". That's the same person who said back in the 1800s that everything has already been invented.

Maybe there hasn't been a "profitable" way to recycle thus far, so people avoided it like the plague, but this will ultimately have to be invented or the situation completely avoided... or it'll get to a point where we have no more place to put unwanted stuff.

Earth is huge, but eventually, it will run out of raw materials. Maybe this nanotechnology business will have a solution for this.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

If someone thinks they should pay $120 to fix a $90 VCR just so it doesn't get discarded, this is ridiculous.

Not necessarily.

The big problem is that the economy is stupid. To it, dollars are dollars.

But there's a world of difference between a dollar earned coding computer software and a dollar earned selling non-renewable oil (which is mostly what the VCR is made of). And there's a world of difference between dollars earned providing a valuable service and dollars spent on things such as replacement/repair costs resulting from a crime.

Yet, the way the economy is usually measured, a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. The money spent cleaning up oil spills is listed as economic progress.

Things like the GPI point out that GDP is an awful way to measure progress and attempt to come up with a better way.

When something made from irreplacable resources such as oil is cheaper to replace than repair, the economy is doing a very poor job of modelling reality...

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Keith

Not necessarily.

The big problem is that the economy is stupid. To it, dollars are dollars.

But there's a world of difference between a dollar earned coding computer software and a dollar earned selling non-renewable oil (which is mostly what the VCR is made of). And there's a world of difference between dollars earned providing a valuable service and dollars spent on things such as replacement/repair costs resulting from a crime.

Yet, the way the economy is usually measured, a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. The money spent cleaning up oil spills is listed as economic progress.

Things like the GPI point out that GDP is an awful way to measure progress and attempt to come up with a better way.

When something made from irreplacable resources such as oil is cheaper to replace than repair, the economy is doing a very poor job of modelling reality...

Keith,
So are you saying that as individuals we should pay $120 to fix that $90 VCR?

Also, are you saying that somehow the economy is faulty if you can buy it new rather than fix it? If you ever seen many factories in operation then you can understand how small shop paying high rent certainly has more overhead per unit than a factory does.

Hey, it would be wonderful if everything was reusable but they are not and so here we are...

It would also be wonderful if a health economy worked off of whats best for the earth instead of supply & demand but it doesn't.

And as far as "irreplaceable oil" goes, I agree that we should all try to figure out how to consume less of the black stuff but we are nowhere near running out of oil. We near running out of cheap oil. Theres a big difference. There is plenty of oil but its just too deep to get out cheaply. I'm more concerned about polution but not really of running out of oil.

As for the GDP goes, I'm not really sure where you were going with that, my bad...

Man, when we speak of Economics it can really be argued in a 100 ways couldn't it. There really is no black and white with the most complex of issues.