4 ms·

It's the root of the general problem, but as noted elsewhere by another commenter, paying a lot more doesn't actually provide much signal that the product isn't

It's the root of the general problem, but as noted elsewhere by another commenter, paying a lot more doesn't actually provide much signal that the product isn't junk.

Nextgrid 4y ago
For beancounters, a brand's reputation for expensive but long-lasting products is an amazing opportunity to "create shareholder value" and boost (short-term) profits by cutting corners on quality. Obviously the reputation will eventually adjust and this strategy will stop working, but besides the disgruntled customers, bonuses have been paid, people have been promoted and shareholder value was created. By the time the brand dies the people involved would've moved on to their next victim. Paying more indeed isn't a reliable signal because even if a brand truly has a reputation for reliable stuff there is no guarantee someone isn't pulling the aforementioned strategy in the background.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  Also, if you make machines that last a long time and are easily repairable, pretty soon you will saturate the market and won't have any new customers. If you can only sell to each person once, you won't have a sustainable business. All the companies that made things that last forever went out of business.
  - ornornor 4y ago
    It feels like a middle ground would be to make shit that lasts and decent amount of time AND sell the parts at a decent cost to keep them working for ever. Parts provide a regular revenue stream, consumers don’t have to buy a new appliance every three years, and swapping a gear doesn’t cost 75% of a new appliance.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    If companies can't produce the high quality goods that we want and need, then what are they good for? They were supposed to compete with each other to see who can make the best products, not the cheapest junk. This pathological capitalism has to go away forever. It's bad for consumers and bad for the environment. Companies exist because society allows them to exist, and they're allowed to exist because people believe they will fulfill their wants and needs. If they keep failing us in such spectacular ways, there's no reason for them to keep existing.
    - iSnow 4y ago
      But a lot of people actually want companies to produce as cheap as possible - be it because they are poor or because they dislike regulatory interventions for ideological reasons. Not saying this is great and I try to buy higher-quality goods if possible, but the reality is that needs and wants of high-income persons might be different to those of the poor.

It's the root of the general problem, but as noted elsewhere by another commenter, paying a lot more doesn't actually provide much signal that the product isn't junk.

Nextgrid 4y ago

For beancounters, a brand's reputation for expensive but long-lasting products is an amazing opportunity to "create shareholder value" and boost (short-term) profits by cutting corners on quality. Obviously the reputation will eventually adjust and this strategy will stop working, but besides the disgruntled customers, bonuses have been paid, people have been promoted and shareholder value was created. By the time the brand dies the people involved would've moved on to their next victim. Paying more indeed isn't a reliable signal because even if a brand truly has a reputation for reliable stuff there is no guarantee someone isn't pulling the aforementioned strategy in the background.

cortesoft 4y ago
Also, if you make machines that last a long time and are easily repairable, pretty soon you will saturate the market and won't have any new customers. If you can only sell to each person once, you won't have a sustainable business. All the companies that made things that last forever went out of business.
- ornornor 4y ago
  It feels like a middle ground would be to make shit that lasts and decent amount of time AND sell the parts at a decent cost to keep them working for ever. Parts provide a regular revenue stream, consumers don’t have to buy a new appliance every three years, and swapping a gear doesn’t cost 75% of a new appliance.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  If companies can't produce the high quality goods that we want and need, then what are they good for? They were supposed to compete with each other to see who can make the best products, not the cheapest junk. This pathological capitalism has to go away forever. It's bad for consumers and bad for the environment. Companies exist because society allows them to exist, and they're allowed to exist because people believe they will fulfill their wants and needs. If they keep failing us in such spectacular ways, there's no reason for them to keep existing.
  - iSnow 4y ago
    But a lot of people actually want companies to produce as cheap as possible - be it because they are poor or because they dislike regulatory interventions for ideological reasons. Not saying this is great and I try to buy higher-quality goods if possible, but the reality is that needs and wants of high-income persons might be different to those of the poor.