sick and tired of new scrap appliances.

[Noirblack]

I guess I should have left out the morbid comic relief from my rant. Naturally, no one will deem you a sociopath for not buying an iPad. On the other hand, there was a time when someone would ask me what my cell number was and I would say, "I don't own a cell phone." I wouldn't just receive dirty looks, I was honestly heckled. Same goes for Facebook - or my lack thereof. No one has deemed me a sociopath, but I'm certainly abnormal, an outsider, an "other" because I don't purchase cellular technology or partake in popular social networking.

Switching gears, if a product is useless, few rational people will buy it. The problem isn't the product however, or its price; the problem is the psychology used behind marketing useless products to mindless consumers. Hey - I'm guilty too! I've found myself purchasing a "Natural Bamboo Cutting Board" because it was a "renewable resource" and because its "aesthetics" were pleasing in my kitchen. Why didn't I just buy the cheaper plastic cutting board? Or better yet, why didn't I just make one myself? As I've said, the difference we're discussing is Value vs. Features.

Cars are built with DVD players and LCD monitors - useless to the purpose of a car. Telephones are built with touchscreens and games - useless to the purpose of a phone. Knife sets are built with fancy handles and color schemes - useless to the purpose of a knife.

Yet, these things are sought after - people trample one another at Wal-Mart on Black Friday to get their hands on them. Why would consumers spend money on an XBOX instead of durable clothing? Or a more dependable car? Or repairable shoes? Or solid kitchenware they can pass down to the next generation?

No, they'd rather have their super clear HD monitors in each room of the house, all purchased on credit, while they wallow in a malnourished state of sorry affairs. Someone sold them on that idea. If you're telling me that's not rampant, sickening Consumerism, than I think we're having a different discussion altogether.

Just a few thoughts...

You can be considered an "other" not only for not making consumer choices, but for political and religious views as well. That's just the way people are. But just as you are free to pick your religion or your politics you are free to pick what you buy.

For a bamboo cutting board vs plastic, for a few dollars difference I wouldn't sweat it. Also, the bamboo board does have one important feature. It won't hang around in a landfill for the tens of thousands of years that it takes for plastic to biodegrade. Perhaps that was part of the reason for purchasing bamboo. That is a feature (one that you can't even experience in your lifetime) and it has a value.

Touch screen phones: this whole category is transforming as we speak. The touch screen enables the phone to be used easily as an information device. Cell phones are rarely used for calls any more. It's all texting to communicate and mobile browsers for getting information when not near a computer.

Cars with DVD players: can you put a price on keeping the kids quiet in the back seat?

Black Friday: I don't take part in it because I am Canadian and this is an American phenomena. But from what I see on the news each year, the big event is fueled by the drive to get low prices. The same products were in the stores the day before, but there was much less interest in purchasing the day before at the regular price. Although it looks completely irrational on the face of it (e.g. people lining up over night) it actually shows how price is a big factor in purchasing decisions. It is rational to seek the lowest price you can get for a product. If a low price means more to a consumer than other factors, such as the overall hectic and busy shopping experience of that day, the consumer will be out shopping on Black Friday.

 

[Noirblack]

Exactly -- people behave as they do because they were *taught to behave that way.*

*Individuals* aren't the problem here. Nobody's criticizing any individual for the choices they make -- because those individuals are simply doing what they've been raised and conditioned to do by the society they're immersed in. You're considered "normal" for wanting wanting wanting and never being satisfied. You're considered a malcontent, a misfit, a rabble-rouser, or a Red if you don't accept this culture, so of course most people do. They want to fit in. You really can't blame them for it. All any of us can do is point out where the real responsibilities lie and hope at least a few individuals will think about their alternatives.

I can't quite square this with an earlier comment you made, LizzieMaine. You say you don't want to blame these folks, and yet you wish hard times on them:

"People who want to embrace their own chumpitude and play along with the planned obsolescence game have every right to do so, but a society built on such ooh-gimme-the-shiny-trinket acquisitiveness is a society with an exceedingly hollow core. Personally, it'd make me very happy to see the mall-hopping society of today suddenly reduced to scrubbing their washing on a washboard. It might build some character."

 

[LizzieMaine]

Your interpretation is faulty -- I wouldn't consider scrubbing washing on a washboard to be "hard times" at all. It's good, healthy, honest work that keeps you slim, saves you money, and makes your kitchen smell clean and fresh. It'd do this society a whole lot of good to experience that again.

 

[Noirblack]

Your interpretation is faulty -- I wouldn't consider scrubbing washing on a washboard to be "hard times" at all. It's good, healthy, honest work that keeps you slim, saves you money, and makes your kitchen smell clean and fresh. It'd do this society a whole lot of good to experience that again.

I guess it was the "reduced to" part of the phrase that threw me

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, nobody can deny this society could use a lot of reducing.

Actually, I'd dance with barbarous glee and offer a burnt sacrifice to a graven idol of Ned Ludd himself if I could see something "reduce" society to a much less intrusive, much less pervasive level of technology, one which would make "globalization" impractical, and one which would force society to reevaluate its priorities and live within its means. Whether some sort of controlled cataclysm, a solar flare toasting all the computer chips, or just a mass awakening to common sense, it wouldn't much matter to me. Just the thought of it fills my cold, flinty heart with choirs of angels.

(Please note: the above paragraph is hyperbole, a la Mencken. I'm not actually advocating a cataclysm. But by the same token, I wouldn't be sad if it happened.)

 

[Noirblack]

Eventually there will be a change to our ability to produce and consume all the goods we have now. That will come when oil runs out. It is the easiest and richest source of power that we have ever found and we use it to the fullest to produce like crazy. Once oil is done, solar, wind, and nuclear will be all we have left. Those won't be suficent to power the economy like oil does. That's when the big changes will come to how we live.

 

[jamespowers]

Eventually there will be a change to our ability to produce and consume all the goods we have now. That will come when oil runs out. It is the easiest and richest source of power that we have ever found and we use it to the fullest to produce like crazy. Once oil is done, solar, wind, and nuclear will be all we have left. Those won't be suficent to power the economy like oil does. That's when the big changes will come to how we live.

We will never run out of oil for hundreds of years. Don't worry about it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Aw, rats. He got my hopes up for nothing.

 

[Noirblack]

We will never run out of oil for hundreds of years. Don't worry about it.

That's right, I can't offer a quick turnaround time on that one.

 

[jamespowers]

That's right, I can't offer a quick turnaround time on that one.

"oil is not solely of organic origin, but that there may be another mode of origin as well from deeper in the crust, involving magma." From NASA, we find that oil is NOT only a fossil fuel. It is in fact of other origins as well. Scientists are finding that oil wells thought to be pumped dry have replenished themselves, the amount of oil that has been pumped so far far outweights the amount of organic materials in present models and lastly, oil is being found below the 18,000 foot organic layer.
In other words, oil is going to be around longer then we think.

 

[cklos]

Oil will be extracted and burned for energy as long as it's economically feasible to do so. After the "peak", mankind will move on to the next source (whatever that may be) and it will enrich the next generation of inventors and investors. But....to get back on topic, I really like my new, "energy efficient" (for now), thinly coated, stainless steel appliances.

 

[sheeplady]

Even if we ran out of oil, there is enough shale gas (if they can figure out how to efficiently extract it) in the northeastern part of the US that it makes the middle east look like a tiny dot of a supply. There is so much of it though that with natural gas prices so low, the gas companies are actually losing money to run the few rigs they have and also to maintain their leases. We haven't even hit the tip of the iceberg for that energy source.

 

[Undertow]

Noir, everything you said in your response is indicative of clever marketing. Let me ask you something: have you ever personally performed laboratory tests in which you measured the lifespan of plastic in open-air landfill conditions? And if so, what was the data you obtained? Or haven't you done this? Chances are, like me, you've never done this kind of testing. So how would you know that plastic takes so long to breakdown? Marketing. PR. A problem was created by "scientists" and a solution was developed by god-sent Company X. I would say most companies rely on this ignorance in order to market their product. And listen, I'm saying you and I, and the rest of us are ignorant to some degree. Who has the ability to run exhaustive tests on everything we purchase?

I'm not going to get into wild conspiracy theories, etc., but since when did we have SO MANY problems that had such simple solutions as buying something? Since when did we need DVD players in our cars? Oh, of course, because the kids won't shut up. But were kids that loud and crazy? And weren't there any other alternatives to keeping kids quiet in the car? Makes you wonder how parents without DVD players manage to drive anywhere.

Same goes for touchscreen phones, tablets, pads, pods, and on and on. Apparently humankind were stone-headed cavemen before the advent of a handheld computer that could load Facebook in 3 seconds flat.

Or what about Nike AirJordans? What value do those offer anyone? But you can bet people are lined up every time a new shoe is released so they can fork over $200 for the latest Taiwanese child-made clodhopper. How DID anyone walk before AirJordans?

I guess I'm just as crazy as a rat in a tin outhouse because I can't find the value in these worthless pieces of crap.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Since when did we need DVD players in our cars? Oh, of course, because the kids won't shut up. But were kids that loud and crazy? And weren't there any other alternatives to keeping kids quiet in the car? Makes you wonder how parents without DVD players manage to drive anywhere.

I grew up when an AM radio was your only in-car entertainment option, and I can honestly say that my mother never had the slightest bit of trouble bringing her kids into line. All she had to do is make a certain terrifying snarling face in the rear-view mirror and growl "Dont -- make -- me -- pull -- this -- car -- over," and we settled right down.

Maybe these modern moms need a DVD of her doing this routine to play in the car.

 

[sheeplady]

But you can bet people are lined up every time a new shoe is released so they can fork over $200 for the latest Taiwanese child-made clodhopper.

I think you are confusing Taiwan (a developed nation) with undeveloped nations like China and Vietnam. Taiwan has compulsory education until age 15. Legal age to work in Taiwan is age 15, and there are limitations on how much and where 15 year olds can work.

In New York State (child labor is regulated by the state), children are allowed to start working at 14 in limited occupations, and allowed to work from age 12 in some farming applications. Education is compulsory until age 16. The laws are pretty similar.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Same when we were kids. Well, AM/FM radio. Mom threatening to pull the car over, or turn it around was enough to shut us up.

I grew up when an AM radio was your only in-car entertainment option, and I can honestly say that my mother never had the slightest bit of trouble bringing her kids into line. All she had to do is make a certain terrifying snarling face in the rear-view mirror and growl "Dont -- make -- me -- pull -- this -- car -- over," and we settled right down.

 

[Undertow]

I think you are confusing Taiwan (a developed nation) with undeveloped nations like China and Vietnam...Legal age to work in Taiwan is age 15...

I consider anyone under 18 a child, so if the shoes are made by a 15 year old...[huh]

And regarding Taiwan - yes - they manufacture Nike shoes:

The Manufacturing Practices of the Footwear Industry: Nike vs. the Competition
"Their majority of their output today is produced in factories in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, but they also have factories in Italy, the Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea. These factories are 100% owned by subcontractors, with the majority of their output consisting solely of Nike products"

So I guess for the purposes of my brief example, a Taiwanese child from the ages of 15-18 could have possibly made the $200 shoe that the corpulent American man purchases, instead of buying a more reliable, repairable shoe. In any case, the $200 spent is still $200 wasted.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, they do have a sociocultural function. Any 21st Century kid would be embarrased to live in a neighborhood with a $2 pair of Tuffs hanging from the telephone wire.

 

[sheeplady]

I consider anyone under 18 a child, so if the shoes are made by a 15 year old...[huh]

And regarding Taiwan - yes - they manufacture Nike shoes:

The Manufacturing Practices of the Footwear Industry: Nike vs. the Competition
"Their majority of their output today is produced in factories in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, but they also have factories in Italy, the Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea. These factories are 100% owned by subcontractors, with the majority of their output consisting solely of Nike products"

So I guess for the purposes of my brief example, a Taiwanese child from the ages of 15-18 could have possibly made the $200 shoe that the corpulent American man purchases, instead of buying a more reliable, repairable shoe. In any case, the $200 spent is still $200 wasted.

But likely some of the food you eat (raised in your own country) was picked by "child labor" that is far much younger than even the Taiwanese allow children to work. And that same shoe could be made in the US by "children," since people can also work in US factories at about the same age as in Taiwan with the same restrictions. It being made in Taiwan really has nothing to do with it being made by children- it could just as likely be made by children if it were made in this country. Decisions are made at a corporate level that create inferior products.

In other words, if you're upset about child labor in Taiwan, you ought to be very upset about child labor in your own country because the laws allow children to work at even younger ages. Some of those other countries you listed have horrendous labor policies, but grouping them in with Taiwan makes no sense.

I am a strong advocate that teenagers should be able to work. I think it makes better people. While I do believe strongly in compulsory education until age 16, I don't consider 16 year olds or even 15 year olds to be "children" to the extent that they cannot work. I think it infantilizes people who are about to enter adulthood. Allowing teens to work (with guidelines) also helps teens who come from disadvantaged backgrounds who need to bring home wages to their families and/or save for their own future. Not everybody can come from families where their parents can pay for their every need until they reach 18.

 

[Undertow]

So I guess for the purposes of my brief example, an AMERICAN child from the ages of 15-18 could have possibly made the $200 shoe that the corpulent Taiwanese man purchases, instead of buying a more reliable, repairable shoe. In any case, the $200 spent is still $200 wasted.