5 ms·

I think some inflation will do us good. Things get pricier so people buy less, thus require the things they do buy to last longer, and we move away from the dis

I think some inflation will do us good. Things get pricier so people buy less, thus require the things they do buy to last longer, and we move away from the disposable everything culture and all its byproducts.

fsckboy 5y ago
>thus require the things they do buy to last longer that will not be the effect of inflation. manufacturing products to the requirement that products last longer (or not) is on a much longer timescale than inflationary factors.
brutusborn 5y ago
I hope that your intuition is correct, but I think the opposite is equally as plausible: prices are "sticky" so producers cut costs to compensate, exacerbating high disposal frequency.
dominotw 5y ago
lets make poor ppl buy less
eru 5y ago
> Things get pricier so people buy less, [...] That's not how inflation works. First, you can't reason from a price change. Things might get more expensive because there's more demand (ie people buying more), or because supply is disrupted. Second, inflation is a general rise in the price level. That includes a rise in wages. If you 'want' people to buy less stuff, you need to lower their real incomes. That can happen in a period of general inflation, general deflation, or even stable prices. See also https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/never_reason_fr.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/never_reason_fr.htm...
- kamaal 5y ago
  >>That includes a rise in wages. That's not how it works either. When the price of fuel increases, the cost to send a worker from point A to point B increases. However the worker salaries don't change all that much, or at-least not uniformly.
  - eru 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation says > In economics, inflation refers to a simultaneous progressive increase in all prices (including wages) in an economy. Of course, you might have a situation that mixes general inflation with a change in relative prices, eg the relative price of labour might decline. In fact, sticky wages are one of the leading contenders for why we have (demand side) recessions at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_rigidity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_rigidity
freeone3000 5y ago
Durable goods are still available to purchase. Miele makes vacuums, Samsung makes ranges, and so on. Most households do not purchase them because they value their money higher than durability of their goods -- it's a good trade-off for them, because the $1000 they don't spend ensuring their washing machine lasts 50 years instead of 15 can then be used for transit or food; or the $1000 simply didn't exist in the first place. We have a glut of disposable, nondurable goods that were traditionally durable because the durable goods are expensive, and what you can get working 40 hrs/week at a warehouse job has essentially plummeted. The replacement goods are a way of absorbing this loss of income by substituting low quality instead of fewer things -- a further loss of effective income would only reduce the quality floor lower.
- riffraff 5y ago
  As Terry Pratchett put it: > The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. > Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. > But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. > This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    Getting my boots resoled is now more expensive than a pair of reasonable quality new boots (which will last as long as the new soles).
  - rblatz 5y ago
    Every time I read this I think that an intrepid boot salesman would issue credit and sell the good boots for say 7 yearly payments of $10 and make a killing.
kylehotchkiss 5y ago
The past few years, mobile devices and computers have been built better as device manufacturers compete on durable screens, water resistance, and more reliable hardware. A 3 year old phone isn’t trash like they used to be. And a good 3 year laptop has a few years left before needing to be replaced. Cars too - car quality has accelerated since the late 90s and early 2000s, and because of that, a few less people are suffering the car price hikes.
michaelmrose 5y ago
Half of America can't just consume less unless you mean less food, medical care or less living indoors. Worse moving to sustainable purchases requires up front investments so to a degree poverty breeds waste.

fsckboy 5y ago

>thus require the things they do buy to last longer that will not be the effect of inflation. manufacturing products to the requirement that products last longer (or not) is on a much longer timescale than inflationary factors.

brutusborn 5y ago

I hope that your intuition is correct, but I think the opposite is equally as plausible: prices are "sticky" so producers cut costs to compensate, exacerbating high disposal frequency.

dominotw 5y ago

lets make poor ppl buy less

eru 5y ago

> Things get pricier so people buy less, [...] That's not how inflation works. First, you can't reason from a price change. Things might get more expensive because there's more demand (ie people buying more), or because supply is disrupted. Second, inflation is a general rise in the price level. That includes a rise in wages. If you 'want' people to buy less stuff, you need to lower their real incomes. That can happen in a period of general inflation, general deflation, or even stable prices. See also https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/never_reason_fr.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/never_reason_fr.htm...

kamaal 5y ago
>>That includes a rise in wages. That's not how it works either. When the price of fuel increases, the cost to send a worker from point A to point B increases. However the worker salaries don't change all that much, or at-least not uniformly.
- eru 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation says > In economics, inflation refers to a simultaneous progressive increase in all prices (including wages) in an economy. Of course, you might have a situation that mixes general inflation with a change in relative prices, eg the relative price of labour might decline. In fact, sticky wages are one of the leading contenders for why we have (demand side) recessions at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_rigidity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_rigidity

freeone3000 5y ago

Durable goods are still available to purchase. Miele makes vacuums, Samsung makes ranges, and so on. Most households do not purchase them because they value their money higher than durability of their goods -- it's a good trade-off for them, because the $1000 they don't spend ensuring their washing machine lasts 50 years instead of 15 can then be used for transit or food; or the $1000 simply didn't exist in the first place. We have a glut of disposable, nondurable goods that were traditionally durable because the durable goods are expensive, and what you can get working 40 hrs/week at a warehouse job has essentially plummeted. The replacement goods are a way of absorbing this loss of income by substituting low quality instead of fewer things -- a further loss of effective income would only reduce the quality floor lower.

riffraff 5y ago
As Terry Pratchett put it: > The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. > Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. > But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. > This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  Getting my boots resoled is now more expensive than a pair of reasonable quality new boots (which will last as long as the new soles).
- rblatz 5y ago
  Every time I read this I think that an intrepid boot salesman would issue credit and sell the good boots for say 7 yearly payments of $10 and make a killing.

kylehotchkiss 5y ago

The past few years, mobile devices and computers have been built better as device manufacturers compete on durable screens, water resistance, and more reliable hardware. A 3 year old phone isn’t trash like they used to be. And a good 3 year laptop has a few years left before needing to be replaced. Cars too - car quality has accelerated since the late 90s and early 2000s, and because of that, a few less people are suffering the car price hikes.

michaelmrose 5y ago

Half of America can't just consume less unless you mean less food, medical care or less living indoors. Worse moving to sustainable purchases requires up front investments so to a degree poverty breeds waste.