5 ms·

What about all the spare parts that have to be kept lying around? They are waste, too. Just one aspect. As usually, when politicians think they can do business

What about all the spare parts that have to be kept lying around? They are waste, too. Just one aspect. As usually, when politicians think they can do business better than the businesses themselves, this will probably be a net waste.

maweki 7y ago
Why would a company keep spare parts around when it can sell a new device or only allow "certified" maintanance? Where is the incentive in letting a customer spend less money on parts and labour? How exactly can the market be doing good work here? And why didn't this work with cars, where the hobbyist can no longer service 99% of their newly bought car?
- asdaddasdad 7y ago
  Simple: if people would want devices they could repair, they would prefer the products of companies offering such devices over the products of companies not offering such devices. The problem here is that people don't really want these devices. Maybe they think they want them, but in reality the effort to have them repaired would be too much to them. As others have pointed out, wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts.
  - jimktrains2 7y ago
    > Simple: if people would want devices they could repair, they would prefer the products of companies offering such devices over the products of companies not offering such devices. Except when no one provides such products, or the only ones fitting that goal require very large sacrifices elsewhere. Look at mobile phones and tablets before the EU rules. Finding one that charged off a standard USB socket was near impossible. Again with mobile phones, since there is no right to actually own and control your device, finding a phone that allows you to root it constrains your choices in just about every other way, including ways that have nothing to do with being able to root the phone, such as being a second class citizen from your carriers point of view (e.g. Verizon refused to enable international calling for my phone because it wasn't an "approved", aka Verizon branded, phone.) So, right to repair regulations mean that I wouldn't have to decide between being environmentally conscious (if that open is even available) and having a product that works. > wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts. I can and do perform many repairs myself when the device allows a repair to be done (even sometimes when it doesn't).
    - asdaddasdad 7y ago
      Not sure what EU rules you are referring to. All the phones I had were chargeable by standard USB socket and rootable, afaik. You have things like fairphone where you can exchange and upgrade parts. In general, the magic of capitalism is that if people want something, somebody will eventually make it. I also wonder how much of companies trying to prevent repairs is actually BECAUSE of regulations. Like they could be liable if something goes wrong. What if somebody tries to repair a phone, does it wrong, and the battery explodes. Who would be liable? Your final point, with you being able to do a lot of repairs: you are not normal in that respect. Most people could not do that. And even the hourly rate of most people would probably make it ineffective for them to do it, even if they could. Since it is inefficient, I question the assumption that repairs are automatically good for the environment. Maybe buying a newer, more energy efficient machine every couple of years is better in some cases, especially if the old machine is recycled properly. I would be much more in favor of regulations with respect to recycling. This "repairing is better" is mostly ideology and virtue signalling.
- magduf 7y ago
  >And why didn't this work with cars, where the hobbyist can no longer service 99% of their newly bought car? Citation needed. People keep trotting this out as if it's some kind of accepted truth, and it just isn't.
frenchman99 7y ago
If politicians didn't regulate businesses, we'd still be working 100 hours a week for 1€/hour. So yeah, politicians try to defend the general interest best they can. Sometimes they make mistakes of course. Countries with strong regulations can thrive. I live in France. People like to bash on our social system and on our strong regulations, but we are still one of the worlds greatest economic powers. Same goes with Germany.
- self_awareness 7y ago
  > If politicians didn't regulate businesses, we'd still be working 100 hours a week for 1€/hour. That's not true. All it needs is for one business among hundreds to require working 90 hours a week. Then all employees would want to work 90 hours a week instead of 100 hours. Then automatically lots of people would want to work in this company instead of all the others. The other companies in order to keep workers in their companies would also want to lower the bar to 90 hours. And if everyone would require 90 hours a week, then when 1 company would lower the bar to 80 hours a week... etc.
  - maweki 7y ago
    And this is why we have a mandatory minimum work week instead of a maximum one, so that companies can get something ... anything ... done. Did I get this right?
    - self_awareness 7y ago
      No, if a company would not be able to produce anything, it ceases to exist. So there is a minimum number of hours of work every week. A company will not be able to get lower than its minimum. How much is that depends on the work itself, the efficiency of work, and the efficiency of management.
  - simias 7y ago
    The parent's comment was overly simplistic but yours is even more so. What you describe works if companies struggle to hire people and need to compete with each-other for workforce. Nowadays in many sectors throughout the world (and often for less educated workforce) it's the other way around: there are more people looking for a job than there are vacancies. Clearly in this situation it works the other way around: the worker who's ready to work longer for cheaper will be hired over the others. Then it's a race to the bottom.
Certhas 7y ago
I'm sure the experts that wrote this legislation never considered this problem that you just came up with in 5 seconds. /s We have regulation that makes machines safer. This is regulation that makes machines safer for the environment. If the regulation turns out to be counterproductive it can be adapted later...
- asdaddasdad 7y ago
  If you trust the "experts" of the government, you are probably a big fan of Trump. And if Hillary had won, you would be a great fan of her. Experts are not better than business leaders at running businesses.
wvh 7y ago
A lot of corporations will gladly destroy the environment, the fabric of society and human happiness just to turn a profit. The government will try to regulate business but often ignorantly and inefficiently. As usually, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I think what the EU is trying to do is to force both companies and consumers to think about the consequences of mindless mass consumption and obsolescence. Beyond petty laws and regulations, the EU sometimes does have a noble fundamental concept behind their policies; it remains to be seen if the resulting policies are effective in practice.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  >a noble fundamental concept behind their policies the word you're looking for is "populist" - i.e.,"we care, but we don't care enough to start looking bad". It's a good step, but not great. Greater urgency is needed at this time.
- asdaddasdad 7y ago
  If you don't want pollution, regulate pollution. But this "everything should be repaired and the world would be better" is pure ideology. They think they can achieve less pollution by enforcing repairs. They are not businessmen. They don't know the actual problems with production and repairs. They should let businesses figure out how to reduce waste and pollution, not tell them what to do.

maweki 7y ago

Why would a company keep spare parts around when it can sell a new device or only allow "certified" maintanance? Where is the incentive in letting a customer spend less money on parts and labour? How exactly can the market be doing good work here? And why didn't this work with cars, where the hobbyist can no longer service 99% of their newly bought car?

asdaddasdad 7y ago
Simple: if people would want devices they could repair, they would prefer the products of companies offering such devices over the products of companies not offering such devices. The problem here is that people don't really want these devices. Maybe they think they want them, but in reality the effort to have them repaired would be too much to them. As others have pointed out, wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts.
- jimktrains2 7y ago
  > Simple: if people would want devices they could repair, they would prefer the products of companies offering such devices over the products of companies not offering such devices. Except when no one provides such products, or the only ones fitting that goal require very large sacrifices elsewhere. Look at mobile phones and tablets before the EU rules. Finding one that charged off a standard USB socket was near impossible. Again with mobile phones, since there is no right to actually own and control your device, finding a phone that allows you to root it constrains your choices in just about every other way, including ways that have nothing to do with being able to root the phone, such as being a second class citizen from your carriers point of view (e.g. Verizon refused to enable international calling for my phone because it wasn't an "approved", aka Verizon branded, phone.) So, right to repair regulations mean that I wouldn't have to decide between being environmentally conscious (if that open is even available) and having a product that works. > wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts. I can and do perform many repairs myself when the device allows a repair to be done (even sometimes when it doesn't).
  - asdaddasdad 7y ago
    Not sure what EU rules you are referring to. All the phones I had were chargeable by standard USB socket and rootable, afaik. You have things like fairphone where you can exchange and upgrade parts. In general, the magic of capitalism is that if people want something, somebody will eventually make it. I also wonder how much of companies trying to prevent repairs is actually BECAUSE of regulations. Like they could be liable if something goes wrong. What if somebody tries to repair a phone, does it wrong, and the battery explodes. Who would be liable? Your final point, with you being able to do a lot of repairs: you are not normal in that respect. Most people could not do that. And even the hourly rate of most people would probably make it ineffective for them to do it, even if they could. Since it is inefficient, I question the assumption that repairs are automatically good for the environment. Maybe buying a newer, more energy efficient machine every couple of years is better in some cases, especially if the old machine is recycled properly. I would be much more in favor of regulations with respect to recycling. This "repairing is better" is mostly ideology and virtue signalling.
magduf 7y ago
>And why didn't this work with cars, where the hobbyist can no longer service 99% of their newly bought car? Citation needed. People keep trotting this out as if it's some kind of accepted truth, and it just isn't.

frenchman99 7y ago

If politicians didn't regulate businesses, we'd still be working 100 hours a week for 1€/hour. So yeah, politicians try to defend the general interest best they can. Sometimes they make mistakes of course. Countries with strong regulations can thrive. I live in France. People like to bash on our social system and on our strong regulations, but we are still one of the worlds greatest economic powers. Same goes with Germany.

self_awareness 7y ago
> If politicians didn't regulate businesses, we'd still be working 100 hours a week for 1€/hour. That's not true. All it needs is for one business among hundreds to require working 90 hours a week. Then all employees would want to work 90 hours a week instead of 100 hours. Then automatically lots of people would want to work in this company instead of all the others. The other companies in order to keep workers in their companies would also want to lower the bar to 90 hours. And if everyone would require 90 hours a week, then when 1 company would lower the bar to 80 hours a week... etc.
- maweki 7y ago
  And this is why we have a mandatory minimum work week instead of a maximum one, so that companies can get something ... anything ... done. Did I get this right?
  - self_awareness 7y ago
    No, if a company would not be able to produce anything, it ceases to exist. So there is a minimum number of hours of work every week. A company will not be able to get lower than its minimum. How much is that depends on the work itself, the efficiency of work, and the efficiency of management.
- simias 7y ago
  The parent's comment was overly simplistic but yours is even more so. What you describe works if companies struggle to hire people and need to compete with each-other for workforce. Nowadays in many sectors throughout the world (and often for less educated workforce) it's the other way around: there are more people looking for a job than there are vacancies. Clearly in this situation it works the other way around: the worker who's ready to work longer for cheaper will be hired over the others. Then it's a race to the bottom.

Certhas 7y ago

I'm sure the experts that wrote this legislation never considered this problem that you just came up with in 5 seconds. /s We have regulation that makes machines safer. This is regulation that makes machines safer for the environment. If the regulation turns out to be counterproductive it can be adapted later...

asdaddasdad 7y ago
If you trust the "experts" of the government, you are probably a big fan of Trump. And if Hillary had won, you would be a great fan of her. Experts are not better than business leaders at running businesses.

wvh 7y ago

A lot of corporations will gladly destroy the environment, the fabric of society and human happiness just to turn a profit. The government will try to regulate business but often ignorantly and inefficiently. As usually, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I think what the EU is trying to do is to force both companies and consumers to think about the consequences of mindless mass consumption and obsolescence. Beyond petty laws and regulations, the EU sometimes does have a noble fundamental concept behind their policies; it remains to be seen if the resulting policies are effective in practice.

blue_devil 7y ago
>a noble fundamental concept behind their policies the word you're looking for is "populist" - i.e.,"we care, but we don't care enough to start looking bad". It's a good step, but not great. Greater urgency is needed at this time.
asdaddasdad 7y ago
If you don't want pollution, regulate pollution. But this "everything should be repaired and the world would be better" is pure ideology. They think they can achieve less pollution by enforcing repairs. They are not businessmen. They don't know the actual problems with production and repairs. They should let businesses figure out how to reduce waste and pollution, not tell them what to do.