4 ms·
I wouldn't want the "average" new sofa either, especially not in a price bracket I consider reasonable. I agree that it would be more efficient if people kept
by Veen 7y ago
I wouldn't want the "average" new sofa either, especially not in a price bracket I consider reasonable.
I agree that it would be more efficient if people kept their sofas for a decade, but they don't, and me buying the sofas they don't want is a better option than them ending up on a trash heap. Plus, I'll probably keep them for ten years. I buy high-end furniture second-hand so I can do exactly that, rather than getting a new Ikea piece of junk that falls apart in a couple of years.
I suppose the ideal scenario would be for manufacturers not to make rubbish and for people to be able to afford good furniture that lasts for decades, but we don't live in that world.
- mehrdadn 7y agoI think you misunderstood the point of my comment. I wasn't criticizing your approach or debating buying first- vs. second-hand. That's not what the discussion was about at all. The question was about renting and "updating" every couple years "because you want to" vs. actually owning your stuff, and how much additional waste that generates. I was pointing out that even if people like you exist who buy second-hand, they (naturally) won't necessarily be interested in doing that for most items, so that still results in a ton of waste instead of increasing re-use as someone else claimed. That's what this discussion was about.