Hopefully I’ve worded the question right.
I was once told (I could never verify if it was true) that a crocs company once almost went bankrupt after they made their crocs practically indestructible. Whilst the story was most likely bullshit, it makes me wonder: if a company can make a product that is practically indestructible, is it ethical for them not to make them indestructible, so people will buy more from them?
The way I look at it is, on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money and that less is wasted, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families? So I can’t decide, what do you think?
I’m sure someone has the Vimes Principle of Economic Unfairness on hand.
I’m also sure that there’s a slope for every product showing the durability and the price required to achieve it. Then there’s the reputation cost of making a cheap version and expensive version of something. If you make something flimsy for $5, it’s unlikely that someone would buy the indestructible version for $100, even if the cheap version was intended to function as an example of what the expensive product can do. Given an ethical vacuum, I think there’s great incentive to do the mediumest you can, even if you have a monopoly.
The ethics are going to be different for every product and every person. If you care about whales, indestructible fishing nets will seem evil. If you make something biodegradable, it will necessarily be flimsy, and that limits its long term usefulness. When the owner of an indestructible item dies, what’s to be done with it, and by whom? I think society would need to be radically different to even begin to answer this question.
Imagine you went to a football game and bought a serving fries. They come in a little clay-lined paper dish. The clay lining in that dish resists small amounts of oil for about 30 minutes, but after that time is up, the oil will penetrate through, soaking the dish and possibly staining your clothes.
The manufacturer could’ve used a plastic lining instead. It’s more resistant for much longer, and is still food-safe at reasonable temperatures. Is the choice of clay over plastic unethical? Or is it reasonable to pick a cheaper, more recyclable material with the assumption that it won’t take most people a full 30 minutes to eat their fries?
Different things have different purposes and need to meet different standards. “Breakable” vs “durable” isn’t an objective measurement of quality.
I remember when the standard cup for those events was waxy paper, and the feeling of condensation coming off of the wax and making your fingers extra grippy.
Now most paper cups are lined with polyethylene, so they don’t leak but also can’t be recycled or composted properly.
That’s a toughy. Go broke with morals or get rich being unethical
I’m not sure tbh. That’s kind of why I asked the question, and hopefully other’s views may shed light on this ‘issue’
Morals don’t put dinner on the table.
That’s not to say they’re not important, but that business is important too.
So where do you stand on the debate then? Do you believe there’s a ‘trade off’, so to speak?
Genuinely, I don’t really think this is an ethical or moral issue.
With that said, the first thing that jumps out to me is the question intimates that there may be a duty to manufacture “less breakable” products. I’m assuming that’s to protect the money spent by the consumer. If it is, then that’s pretty weird.
What’s your opinion then?
There are companies that went broke by making their product indestructible, a notable example being the maker of the wildly popular Instant Pot. They made a product that just didn’t break. This is called planned obsolescence failure and has happened to other companies too.
That being said, making flimsy shit on purpose is shady at best.
The company that made instant pot actually went bankrupt because it was acquired by private equity via leveraged buyout.
What you’re telling is the story the evil assholes that profit from that kind of thing want you to believe.
Huh
private equity could have slashed the product due to poor growth (due to ppl not buying repeatedly).
I agree it’s what evil assholes want us to believe, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a false claim.
Oh honey
Bless their little heart.
This is why capitalism is stupid at its core. It doesn’t promote anything good. It only promotes greed and enriching the top. Make the shittiest product you possibly can that people will buy, buy out every other maker of product, repopulate the sector with fake brands to give people illusion of choice.
Oldest trick in the book. And literally not 1 person I know can see through this trickery.
In capitalism making a long lasting good product is not viable at all, it makes no sense. Who gives a shit if your great grandkid is still using your oven 60 years later, the shareholders dont benefit then. Out of business. Its an idiotic system kept alive only by propaganda.
Won’t any one think of the shareholders!!
It would be so easy to fix, too.
the longer your shit lasts, the more your line goes up
this is a failure of consumerism, materialism and greed. not capitalism.
“True capitalism has never been tried” heeheehee :p
lolol
Those are all byproducts of unregulated capitalism.
Those are all byproducts of
unregulatedcapitalism.also true
Dont get me wrong, humans are just shit, and I think any system is going to eventually fail because assholes get in power. But more places could at least try a mixed capitalism/socialist approach like we have seen works in Norway/Denmark (at least I think thats how they aporoach it)
Yeah it’s a right dilemma. Because on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families?
It won’t in socialism. China is doing rather well, overall.
Are you implying that china is socialist?
China is socialist.
l’mao.
Lol is this french lmao?
It was a pun about Mao :)
The real reason was private equity
Private equity made things a lot worse. In 2019, Instant Brands was acquired by Cornell Capital and unceremoniously merged with Corelle Brands, a housewares company that includes Pyrex. An acquisition by a private equity firm brings certain expectations with it—namely: lots and lots of fast growth.
The poor growth that private equity didn’t find attractive could have been due to lack of repeat purchases tho.
But it means that the company was doing fine for decades.
Right. Like I also hate capitalism as it exists today, but it is definitely possible to make a living making GOOD products. You just can’t make billions doing it. Even if the product was LITERALLY indestructible, people will lose them, plus they’re always making new people. It’s just a lot slower than if you make a shit product people have to keep replacing
agree 100%. It’s only impossible if you saturate the market, which means you’re a huge player.
Corelle/Pyrex is its own story of going from the best product to “good enough”. Simple point, if you find yourself some old stuff of theirs, hang on to it because you can’t find anything comparable anymore. Same can probably be true of other old brands of products. I found an old Whirlpool dryer that I won’t ever let go of for the same reason. What will eventually fail on it I can either fix or buy a new, cheap part.
planned obselescence is an ongoing thing, they figured if they make a very long lasting product, they wont be returning customers, what better way to use shrinkflation,chepflation every 2-5 years. things like fridges and microwaves often is replaced every 2 years.
It is unethical. If a company made a product so good it went bankrupt, there should be guardrails to ensure the workers and their families be rightfully compensated for their contribution to the better of society.
We’re drowning in waste because of this mentality of selling things no matter what.
There should be incentives to make great things, there shouldn’t be incentives to be a great stealer.
How would that work exactly? Where would the money for the workers and their families be coming from?
Idk, taxes maybe? They (gvnmt) always find money when they want/need. Securing someone for 6-7 years (enough time to land on your feet) doesn’t seem like too much money on a country level when you consider other areas of spending (defense/consulting/…)
If the company was that good, it must’ve brought some numbers
(I believe, idk I’m no expert at all)
It’s not ethical, it’s capitalism and democracy in the name of the lord Money.
Just engineering something to be garbage for no other reason than so that people will buy more is unethical. That said, there are always trade offs and durability has to be weighed against other priorities.
For example, cars used to have much bigger bumpers which were expected to protect against damage in low speed impacts. Those went away because the requirements changed, the low speed crash test was out, and fuel efficiency requirements were in.
Or there’s incandescent bulbs. They were ubiquitous for over a century, and yet they were constantly burning out and changing them was just a fact of life. Manufacturers could have easily made a more robust filament so the bulb would last longer, but doing so would have dramatically decreased the output of the bulb.
I think it’s okay to have different levels of quality at different price points so people can have options that fit their budget. A personal anecdote is measuring spoons. When I was young and just starting out, I just bought the cheapest set that would get the job done for a while. They were simply rounded plastic and the markings quickly started to wear off. Years later, when I was a bit more settled down, I decided to splurge on some nice stainless steel spoons in a rectangular shape that lets them fit inside spice jars better.
You mean… Apple? Create a new version and say the others are obsolete… Adobe?
Obviously not, thats literally the opposite of what ethics are about…
Is it ethical for you as a consumer to buy low quality stuff that you know will break?
If the companies were required to produce something of a particular durability the average cost would be lower and more accessible to all stratas of society; your ethical argument comes from a place of significant privilege.
Your argument comes from a position of everything is someone else’s fault you are powerless.
It may truly be the case for you. But most other people can make a difference for the better regardless of what the government or companies do.
Ok corpbro.
Hmm… never thought of that…
You may only have the power over your own purchase decisions, but hold on to what power you have.
But most times you don’t know it the first time.
is this engagement bait? the phrasing of this question answers itself.
No, I genuinely don’t know how I feel about it for the reasons I outlined in the post above. I’m simply asking people for their views to get a clearer idea of the bigger picture. Plus, if you read all of the comments here, some people do make interesting points on why it could be considered ethical, like affordability for example, points that I never even thought of.
Every company does it. It even has a name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
No, it isn’t ethical.
I think that’s a slightly different thing, albeit with a similar outcome depending on intent.
You can make “indestructible” versions of lots of things, but that doesn’t mean they’re remotely affordable or even desirable (due to weight or materials used).
A company deliberately making something bad so it breaks is what you’re describing, but a company making something lower quality so it’s cheaper isn’t necessarily the same.
Maybe not every company.
You should read about planned obsolescence.
I will
