6 ms·

I'm a bit worried about the unintended consequences of this. Prices will definitely go up which isn't a bad thing if you can afford it and there will be consol

I'm a bit worried about the unintended consequences of this. Prices will definitely go up which isn't a bad thing if you can afford it and there will be consolidation of manufacturing on the margin. Laws like this sound nice but they almost always restrict choice and make it harder for new entrants to enter the market.

temp1245 9y ago
Well, it should also create higher quality, more skilled work force, less waste, etc etc.
kwhitefoot 9y ago
Are you sure? The sellers will still want to sell, the price is determined by the demand and volume not only the manufacturing cost. We have plenty of choice here in Norway and we have a five year minimum life expectancy for goods such as televisions, computers, etc.
- lefstathiou 9y ago
  No, I am not sure to be honest. Here is how I think about it: on the margin, a rule like this increases the cost of manufacturing and bringing products to market. It also increases the burden that manufacturers will need to surpass to convince distributors (like Walmart, Best Buy, etc) to carry their product to avoid liability. So on the margin, this reduces profit, increases costs, reduces choice, etc. There are televisions, computers, washer dryers, toasters etc on the market that will last years, they just cost 40-50% more than their low cost alternatives. This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. If some college kid wants to buy a disposable toaster that will last 1-2 years let them.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I'm not sure about it either, but I think the cost increase would be at least partially eaten by savings of companies developing further the more durability/repair-friendly business models. > This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. I would hope this would solve one thing the market definitely doesn't provide a solution for - the very existence of crap products. They are being manufactured, transported and sold en-masse, and then they break, creating their own market (people who buy cheapest stuff won't be willing to buy the expensive one after the first one breaks, they'll just buy another cheap piece again). Basically, I'd hope this helps cut waste - and it's not really that different from basic safety and health regulations. It's all about providing a floor on how crappy products are, because market will always optimize towards the very bottom.
  - jononor 9y ago
    At the time of purchase there is not much the consumer can know about how long devices will last. The 50% more expensive option may last 50% longer, twice as long or half as long as the cheaper model. Manufacturers might signal a bit with extended warranties, but there is no need to be a correlation to longevity. They might just decide to take the occasional hit and write it off on their margins. It can often be a hassle to make use of a warranty, and when they are manufacturer specific it can be hard to get help from consumers protection agencies also.
ddebernardy 9y ago
Can you elaborate on that? You seem to be arguing that having companies that sell cheap junk that breaks too early too often (and sometimes on purpose) is a good thing ... because ... more choice? As a consumer I'd much rather have such non-choices out of the way, so that I can have the assurance that if I buy a wash machine it'll still be around in several years.
- lefstathiou 9y ago
  I'm not "arguing" for anything but choice. You probably don't use a $30 cell phone but there is a time and place for them and as a consumer, I like knowing I have the option to pick one up if I want to. If I want quality, I pay for it. If I want an electric screw driver that is going to last long enough for me to setup my Ikea furniture for a 10th of the price of a brand new Dewalt what business is it of anyone but me?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > If I want an electric screw driver that is going to last long enough for me to setup my Ikea furniture for a 10th of the price of a brand new Dewalt what business is it of anyone but me? If they were "manufactured on demand", I would agree. You'd pay more or less depending on your needs. As it is today, each product you can get off the shelf is being manufactured in millions of copies, and is a part of purchasing environment. It affects the market for everyone, and its production affects the environment. I'm of belief that tools barely suited to their function are a waste of materials, energy and production effort - and therefore should not exist. Worse than that, they also provide a price floor on the whole category. You get two categories of items - "crap" items, for which price is pushed down to minimum, and "premium" items, for which the price can stay higher, because customers going for them are not price-sensitive. I currently believe (though this is not a very strong belief) that if we could somehow raise the floor of minimum acceptable product quality, we'd have much less waste, and the better items would be cheaper than they're now (supply and demand, after all).
    - sol_remmy 9y ago

temp1245 9y ago

Well, it should also create higher quality, more skilled work force, less waste, etc etc.

kwhitefoot 9y ago

Are you sure? The sellers will still want to sell, the price is determined by the demand and volume not only the manufacturing cost. We have plenty of choice here in Norway and we have a five year minimum life expectancy for goods such as televisions, computers, etc.

lefstathiou 9y ago
No, I am not sure to be honest. Here is how I think about it: on the margin, a rule like this increases the cost of manufacturing and bringing products to market. It also increases the burden that manufacturers will need to surpass to convince distributors (like Walmart, Best Buy, etc) to carry their product to avoid liability. So on the margin, this reduces profit, increases costs, reduces choice, etc. There are televisions, computers, washer dryers, toasters etc on the market that will last years, they just cost 40-50% more than their low cost alternatives. This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. If some college kid wants to buy a disposable toaster that will last 1-2 years let them.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I'm not sure about it either, but I think the cost increase would be at least partially eaten by savings of companies developing further the more durability/repair-friendly business models. > This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. I would hope this would solve one thing the market definitely doesn't provide a solution for - the very existence of crap products. They are being manufactured, transported and sold en-masse, and then they break, creating their own market (people who buy cheapest stuff won't be willing to buy the expensive one after the first one breaks, they'll just buy another cheap piece again). Basically, I'd hope this helps cut waste - and it's not really that different from basic safety and health regulations. It's all about providing a floor on how crappy products are, because market will always optimize towards the very bottom.
- jononor 9y ago
  At the time of purchase there is not much the consumer can know about how long devices will last. The 50% more expensive option may last 50% longer, twice as long or half as long as the cheaper model. Manufacturers might signal a bit with extended warranties, but there is no need to be a correlation to longevity. They might just decide to take the occasional hit and write it off on their margins. It can often be a hassle to make use of a warranty, and when they are manufacturer specific it can be hard to get help from consumers protection agencies also.

ddebernardy 9y ago

Can you elaborate on that? You seem to be arguing that having companies that sell cheap junk that breaks too early too often (and sometimes on purpose) is a good thing ... because ... more choice? As a consumer I'd much rather have such non-choices out of the way, so that I can have the assurance that if I buy a wash machine it'll still be around in several years.

lefstathiou 9y ago
I'm not "arguing" for anything but choice. You probably don't use a $30 cell phone but there is a time and place for them and as a consumer, I like knowing I have the option to pick one up if I want to. If I want quality, I pay for it. If I want an electric screw driver that is going to last long enough for me to setup my Ikea furniture for a 10th of the price of a brand new Dewalt what business is it of anyone but me?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > If I want an electric screw driver that is going to last long enough for me to setup my Ikea furniture for a 10th of the price of a brand new Dewalt what business is it of anyone but me? If they were "manufactured on demand", I would agree. You'd pay more or less depending on your needs. As it is today, each product you can get off the shelf is being manufactured in millions of copies, and is a part of purchasing environment. It affects the market for everyone, and its production affects the environment. I'm of belief that tools barely suited to their function are a waste of materials, energy and production effort - and therefore should not exist. Worse than that, they also provide a price floor on the whole category. You get two categories of items - "crap" items, for which price is pushed down to minimum, and "premium" items, for which the price can stay higher, because customers going for them are not price-sensitive. I currently believe (though this is not a very strong belief) that if we could somehow raise the floor of minimum acceptable product quality, we'd have much less waste, and the better items would be cheaper than they're now (supply and demand, after all).
  - sol_remmy 9y ago