4 ms·

And then Australians wonder why they pay so much more for everything. The truth is that, good or bad, regulations are not free. Servicing mandatory extended war

And then Australians wonder why they pay so much more for everything. The truth is that, good or bad, regulations are not free. Servicing mandatory extended warranties, accepting otherwise ineligible returns, hiring lawyers and compliance officers, etc. That all costs money.

shakna 10y ago
I might pay more for an iPhone. But I know it'll get fixed, without arguments from Apple. I might pay more for an XBox, but I know Microsoft will fix it. I might pay more for a laptop, but I know the manufacturer will fix it. More than that, I know I can just go back to where I bought it, and they'll take care of it for me. I pay more now... So I won't have to in the future.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  I can also pay more to get that protection if I want to. It's called insurance and you can buy it for just about anything. Indeed, for all of the devices you listed, the manufacturer either sells an extended warranty, or aftermarket (e.g. SquareTrade) insurance is available in the US. I'm not sure why the government should effectively mandate that one buy it, though. Particularly to the lengths that Australia does. But anyhow, my original point wasn't about whether this is a good policy or not, just that it's annoying to hear the same people who cherish these "protections" then complain about being "ripped-off" when they have to pay for them. It's especially annoying when Australian politicians play dumb and try to paint the American companies as the bad guys.
  - shakna 10y ago
    Manufacturers here also push the extended warranties and insurance, even if Consumer Law is more comprehensive. I don't think the extra costs have a 1:1 relationship. Shipping and customs here can be tougher. I haven't heard people who know the protections complain about costs. Surprisingly few people know their rights as a consumer. My main point, which might be orthogonal to yours is: I shouldn't have to buy extra protection in the first place.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      >My main point, which might be orthogonal to yours is: I shouldn't have to buy extra protection in the first place. If I'm willing to pay $200 less for a TV and take a gamble on it not working after two months, why shouldn't I be allowed to?
      - shakna 10y ago
        A manufacturer should never build such a thing in the first place. We don't let restaurants gamble with food that might be off. We don't let hospitals gamble with medecine that might work. There has to be trials. We don't let cars that might be roadworthy drive around day to day. What makes electrical devices, that might rip you off special? Quality Control is mandated, because my day should never be ruined by a device that should make my day easier or more enjoyable.
        marcoperaza 10y ago
        All of your other examples concern damage that extends beyond loss of the product, like death, injury, and illness. Those are covered by public health/safety laws and civil liability. My TV not working does not have any of those effects. There is a clear difference between a TV electrocuting and killing me (damages well beyond my initial investment) and it simply ceasing to function (maximum loss = initial investment). More analogous examples would be: a restaurant serves me an overcooked steak that tastes like a shoe, my car's entertainment system stops working.
        shakna 10y ago
        A shitty TV can short. It can fail catastrophically. A TV of less quality can skip on standards, and that can mean safety. A phone can be a firebomb. So can a washing machine. Electronics should be held to a standard because they can fail dangerously. Now, all that being said: My phone cost $80. My TV cost $100. My washing machine cost $80. My car cost $30,000. I make around $45,000 a year. Its been 5 years, and all of these products were covered by Consumer Law, and every company obeyed the rules if faults appeared. Electronics don't have to be crap.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  And that's fine, as long as you don't complain about paying more than everyone else.
  - ageofwant 10y ago
    We don't pay more because of our consumer protection laws.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      When you say you're receiving something for nothing, you're making an extraordinary claim. Got any evidence?
      - ageofwant 10y ago
        Your basic assumption that higher prices in Australia is due to consumer protection laws is wrong. Its due to economies of scale, shipping costs and because they can. If consumer protection laws made any difference at all it would be insignificant. MTBF of a set number of devices are unrelated to the size of the pool paying to correct set failure, so individual risk payments would be inversely proportional to the size of the pool, ergo, my 2 year Australian extended warranty costs me $10, you American one costs you $200. Well that's how its supposed to work anyway...
- rasz_pl 10y ago
  -You often pay TWICE as much. -There are places keeping prices somewhat sane while having just as strong if not stronger consumer protection laws (UK/EU)
heretoo 10y ago
This doesn't correlate. Companies selling dodgy products in Australia will get more returns and the costs will be higher, and those dodgy products will disappear, for both reasons. Companies selling non-dodgy products in Australia reduce these costs, because they are free from defects so not returnable. It costs them nothing extra when they sell a product that works as advertised.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  Your automatic extended warranty on all products is not free. iPhones have a one year warranty in the US unless you buy the extended warranty. In Australia, you get that extra warranty period for "free", i.e. baked into the price. There is no free lunch.
  - cmdkeen 10y ago
    Extended warranties are a massive profit source, hence why salespeople are pushed so heavily to upsell them. It is not the case that the $X charged for the warranty is the amount the price would need to rise by if the warranty had to be included. We're talking about reducing the opportunity for extra profit being removed, not about costs being added on.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - ralfn 10y ago
    Same in Europe. 2 years. But the purpose of this is to prevent a throw away consumer culture for electronics. This has been a societal response to the economic cheat of planned obsolence. It should be econonically cheaper if we make and buy stuff that lasts a little longer. A more interesting question is: why is the free (unregulated) market not capable of establishing this economic optimum itself? But like plastic cups and plates: washing metal ones is cheaper yet the invisible hand doesnt pick this option. It may have something to do with product prices not representing actual costs. If you could pay your dishwashers the same as you could pay the chinese factory workers it would work itself out just fine. Ps. The planned obselence was a post war strategy that we should have left behind by now.
ageofwant 10y ago
If regulations save more than they cost, they are better than free. And here in 'Stralia, our excellent consumer protection laws pay for themselves. Consumer protection laws has nothing to do with why Autralians pay more for many things.

shakna 10y ago

I might pay more for an iPhone. But I know it'll get fixed, without arguments from Apple. I might pay more for an XBox, but I know Microsoft will fix it. I might pay more for a laptop, but I know the manufacturer will fix it. More than that, I know I can just go back to where I bought it, and they'll take care of it for me. I pay more now... So I won't have to in the future.

marcoperaza 10y ago
I can also pay more to get that protection if I want to. It's called insurance and you can buy it for just about anything. Indeed, for all of the devices you listed, the manufacturer either sells an extended warranty, or aftermarket (e.g. SquareTrade) insurance is available in the US. I'm not sure why the government should effectively mandate that one buy it, though. Particularly to the lengths that Australia does. But anyhow, my original point wasn't about whether this is a good policy or not, just that it's annoying to hear the same people who cherish these "protections" then complain about being "ripped-off" when they have to pay for them. It's especially annoying when Australian politicians play dumb and try to paint the American companies as the bad guys.
- shakna 10y ago
  Manufacturers here also push the extended warranties and insurance, even if Consumer Law is more comprehensive. I don't think the extra costs have a 1:1 relationship. Shipping and customs here can be tougher. I haven't heard people who know the protections complain about costs. Surprisingly few people know their rights as a consumer. My main point, which might be orthogonal to yours is: I shouldn't have to buy extra protection in the first place.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    >My main point, which might be orthogonal to yours is: I shouldn't have to buy extra protection in the first place. If I'm willing to pay $200 less for a TV and take a gamble on it not working after two months, why shouldn't I be allowed to?
    - shakna 10y ago
      A manufacturer should never build such a thing in the first place. We don't let restaurants gamble with food that might be off. We don't let hospitals gamble with medecine that might work. There has to be trials. We don't let cars that might be roadworthy drive around day to day. What makes electrical devices, that might rip you off special? Quality Control is mandated, because my day should never be ruined by a device that should make my day easier or more enjoyable.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        All of your other examples concern damage that extends beyond loss of the product, like death, injury, and illness. Those are covered by public health/safety laws and civil liability. My TV not working does not have any of those effects. There is a clear difference between a TV electrocuting and killing me (damages well beyond my initial investment) and it simply ceasing to function (maximum loss = initial investment). More analogous examples would be: a restaurant serves me an overcooked steak that tastes like a shoe, my car's entertainment system stops working.
        shakna 10y ago
        A shitty TV can short. It can fail catastrophically. A TV of less quality can skip on standards, and that can mean safety. A phone can be a firebomb. So can a washing machine. Electronics should be held to a standard because they can fail dangerously. Now, all that being said: My phone cost $80. My TV cost $100. My washing machine cost $80. My car cost $30,000. I make around $45,000 a year. Its been 5 years, and all of these products were covered by Consumer Law, and every company obeyed the rules if faults appeared. Electronics don't have to be crap.
CamperBob2 10y ago
And that's fine, as long as you don't complain about paying more than everyone else.
- ageofwant 10y ago
  We don't pay more because of our consumer protection laws.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    When you say you're receiving something for nothing, you're making an extraordinary claim. Got any evidence?
    - ageofwant 10y ago
      Your basic assumption that higher prices in Australia is due to consumer protection laws is wrong. Its due to economies of scale, shipping costs and because they can. If consumer protection laws made any difference at all it would be insignificant. MTBF of a set number of devices are unrelated to the size of the pool paying to correct set failure, so individual risk payments would be inversely proportional to the size of the pool, ergo, my 2 year Australian extended warranty costs me $10, you American one costs you $200. Well that's how its supposed to work anyway...
rasz_pl 10y ago
-You often pay TWICE as much. -There are places keeping prices somewhat sane while having just as strong if not stronger consumer protection laws (UK/EU)

heretoo 10y ago

This doesn't correlate. Companies selling dodgy products in Australia will get more returns and the costs will be higher, and those dodgy products will disappear, for both reasons. Companies selling non-dodgy products in Australia reduce these costs, because they are free from defects so not returnable. It costs them nothing extra when they sell a product that works as advertised.

marcoperaza 10y ago
Your automatic extended warranty on all products is not free. iPhones have a one year warranty in the US unless you buy the extended warranty. In Australia, you get that extra warranty period for "free", i.e. baked into the price. There is no free lunch.
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  Extended warranties are a massive profit source, hence why salespeople are pushed so heavily to upsell them. It is not the case that the $X charged for the warranty is the amount the price would need to rise by if the warranty had to be included. We're talking about reducing the opportunity for extra profit being removed, not about costs being added on.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- ralfn 10y ago
  Same in Europe. 2 years. But the purpose of this is to prevent a throw away consumer culture for electronics. This has been a societal response to the economic cheat of planned obsolence. It should be econonically cheaper if we make and buy stuff that lasts a little longer. A more interesting question is: why is the free (unregulated) market not capable of establishing this economic optimum itself? But like plastic cups and plates: washing metal ones is cheaper yet the invisible hand doesnt pick this option. It may have something to do with product prices not representing actual costs. If you could pay your dishwashers the same as you could pay the chinese factory workers it would work itself out just fine. Ps. The planned obselence was a post war strategy that we should have left behind by now.

ageofwant 10y ago

If regulations save more than they cost, they are better than free. And here in 'Stralia, our excellent consumer protection laws pay for themselves. Consumer protection laws has nothing to do with why Autralians pay more for many things.