> How do we as a society encourage products that last?
People are attracted to novelty. While you and I might value the old and functional things that we have and use everyday there is a substantial number of people who will get rid of things like toasters, food mixers, etc., simply because they don't match the colour scheme of the kitchen; the suppliers only care about those people, not us because we don't make any money for them.
If you want products that last you will somehow have to moderate the human desire for novelty. I think that this could be done but it would mean dismantling our educational systems and replacing them with education in the old fashioned sense of producing people who can think and analyse, people who have a sense of history and an understanding of how the world came to be the way it is.
But what use are such people to a society based on, not merely conspicuous, but also excessive consumption?
I don't think people are as attracted to novelty as you think. Sure, everyone has a gadget (or garment) or three that they buy just for novelty, but the vast majority of household items and appliances are bought just to fulfill their purpose. And they won't get replaced unless they break, deteriorate, or reveal design flaws or something else that makes them unfit for the purpose.
What most people do care about is price. And what most suppliers care about is.. yeah, it's a race to the bottom.
I would assume that people would also care about quality and durability if it were something they were informed about. Like, if you're buying a toaster, one sells for $30 and the label says that will break in two years.. the other sells for $40 and the label says it will last for five years or more. I'm pretty sure most people would pick the latter, unless they're exceptionally poor or there's some other major aspect of the design or functionality that draws them to the cheaper option.
Of course, this is not the world we live in, and toasters in $25 to $100 range can last a while or not. Quality or durability is not on the label, and price is not an indication of quality. The trend seems to be that lots of "race to the bottom" companies fill their lineup with premium priced products that are made of the same crap quality as their bottom tier, but they have some silly gimmick (bluetooth in a toothbrush? goodness gracious).
> Like, if you're buying a toaster, one sells for $30 and the label says that will break in two years.. the other sells for $40 and the label says it will last for five years or more.
There's a proxy for that: the manufacturer warranty period.
My current laptop has a 5 year warranty with on-site repair. I chose it over a cheaper laptop from the same manufacturer with only a 3 year warranty with on-site repair. Part of the reason I chose the more expensive model is that the longer warranty means I won't have to replace it for another 5 years.
FWIW I think you are right, we are trained and raised by society to buy and buy all the time.
I know people who think I'm odd for having a Nokia 6 which is nearing 3 years old (but has current Android) and no intention of replacing it - it's partially the circles I move in via work but everyone earns decent money and replaces their phone every year when the new models come out.
More generally I don't replace something unless it's uneconomic to repair, I'm rocking my 2012 road bike, I just stripped and rebuilt it for about 50 quid - I've friends who buy a new one every 18mths.
I like fixing things maybe that is the difference.
People are attracted to novelty. While you and I might value the old and functional things that we have and use everyday there is a substantial number of people who will get rid of things like toasters, food mixers, etc., simply because they don't match the colour scheme of the kitchen; the suppliers only care about those people, not us because we don't make any money for them.
If you want products that last you will somehow have to moderate the human desire for novelty. I think that this could be done but it would mean dismantling our educational systems and replacing them with education in the old fashioned sense of producing people who can think and analyse, people who have a sense of history and an understanding of how the world came to be the way it is.
But what use are such people to a society based on, not merely conspicuous, but also excessive consumption?