We Are All Accumulating Mountains of Things | Hacker News Reader

We Are All Accumulating Mountains of Things

theatlantic.com

43 pointsCraneWorm62 comments

"as consumers demand cheaper clothing, electronics, and other goods, manufacturers are spending less to make them, which sometimes means they fall apart more quickly"

Oh if only it were that simple.

I find that even the premium and more expensive makes are being made just as cheaply meaning they don't last as long either. Or when a simple, and formerly replaceable, part fails it can't be replaced for reasonable cost.

Even the length of time spares are made available has shrunk dramatically, if available at all. No doubt as now manufacturers insist on constantly changing models for no reason other than visuals.

I find that even the premium and more expensive makes are being made just as cheaply

I was looking for some new headphones recently, but reviews of even premium makes were pointing out quality flaws, flimsy manufacturing and so on and I guess now pretty much every pair of headphones in the world comes out of the same factory in Shenzhen and just gets a different brand sticker on it. So I bought a cheap pair by TaoTronics who I’d never heard of before and they’re great! Why would anyone pay 10x as much for basically the same thing?

The most offensive stuff I accumulate is paper received in the mail. Banks, insurance companies, and other self-important financial institutions will send junk that may contain relevant personal information, and as a consequence, I (and many others) have cabinets full of this uninteresting paperwork. At least if I order something I've made the decision to have it in my home. If I were to recreate a postal service in a new nation, I would make it request-only.

Shredding works great st disposal. You can even take a truckload to a professional service

I personally want to pull a Seinfeld Kramer moment and opt out of mail entirely. I only check it once a week, then everything goes directly into the garbage. What a waste.

I have you beat: my mail goes directly to the trash. I keep a trash can under the mail slot in my garage and just let everything fall into it. Once a week, or when I have time or am curious, I pick through it and pull out anything that might be important.

There exist services which receive, scan, store and shred your paper mail.

It might be different where you live, but over here(UK) bank statements/utility bills with your address on them are used as proof of address, so you really want those to be arriving at your own address, otherwise you can be completely screwed.

One scan still scan and shred them by himself. I've never had any complaints after providing a printout from a scan, rather than the original.

Yes of course, but does it mean you have to forward all the letters to the company yourself? Because if yes, then it just sounds like extra work again.

Usually photocopies/print outs aren't admissible as proof of address. At least that has been my experience with credit cards and opening investment accounts.

Ok, but has that been tested in a court? Because that's the only thing that matters, ultimately.

Home Office immigration and some other processes can insist on "originals", even when no originals exist because they were sent electronically.

They’d understand if you furnished them with the digital assets, right?

Home Office is probably the most difficult branch of the British government to work with, if they require a printed original even if no such thing ever existed, you better pull one out of your ass or the whole application will be declined. Not before they hold it for 8 months without any reply first though.

I can see how that works - you fill in papers, wait forever, get back a ridiculous response, appeal, it takes forever, and so forth. My experience with US agencies with poor reputations is generally more positive than their reputation would suggest. Eventually, I have reached higher up humans who treat me logically and reasonably. The problem when you’re dealing with something like health is suffering and/or dying in the meantime.

No? They have an immigration reduction target to meet and if they can do that by deporting you because you forgot to dot an i or cross a t they will.

Someone I knew was denied the opportunity to take a required citizenship test because they'd applied without their middle initial which appeared on their ID documents (or vice versa): a mismatch of "John Smith" vs "John Q Smith" was enough to cost them the test fee plus the day off work and travel to the test.

"According to Barley, the dozen authors were asked to provide three years’ worth of bank statements to demonstrate financial independence, despite being paid to participate in the Edinburgh book festival, and having publishers and the festival guaranteeing to cover their costs while in the UK. Barley said any deposits that could not be easily explained were used as grounds to deny the authors’ visas; one had to reapply three times due to her bank statements."

There definitely was a story which I can't find of someone being rejected because they didn't have enough money in their bank account, securing a transfer of money from a relative, re-applying and then being denied due to the "unexplained" transfer.

They're used the same way in the US however no one seems to care if the bill was printed from a PDF or a mailed copy. The 3 fold crease is about the only way to distinguish if you use a laser printer.

That's not the point - if you get your bills sent elsewhere, the address on the bill is not your own, so you have no proof of address anymore.

This boggled my mind:

The average American bought 7.4 pairs of shoes last year, up from 6.6 pairs in 2000.

I probably should buy shoes more often, that's easily 10 times more often than I do it. Perhaps that was the "wrong" conclusion from this article, though, oops.

Same here. I've bough two pairs of shoes this year.

A pair of boots because my old boots finally fell apart and a pair of trainers / sneakers because I was going on holiday.

In general I try to minimise buying clothes. I hate the entire process.

I had your initial reaction as well since I personally use the same shoes continuously as long as possible (current every day pair is probably 14 months old and not slowing down), but then I realized that I have in fact gone through running shoes at a pace of 2-3 a year and I did also buy dress shoes this year (though I guess those will last many years to come).

Anyway it's a bit of blathering, but I generally consider myself as someone that does not buy very much stuff at all, but I still somehow managed 4-5 pairs in the last 12 months. Maybe I'm not as pure as I assume...

edit: Never mind upon reading the article more closely it's clear it isn't describing someone like me. I still take a long time to decide to buy things and even then I usually decide against it. Regardless of my shoe count this year, I definitely don't just buy random crap non-nonchalantly.

Running shoes wear out in a hundred miles or so? So 2-3 pair a year is the expected value for some.

I think 100 miles is a little low. I don't keep good stats on my running, but a quick glance at this year's running stats (according to Strava) makes me think I've lately been getting closer to 1000 km in each pair of shoes.

But yeah I guess the real point you're making is that if I am actually using and wearing out my stuff, this isn't really a criticism meant for me regardless of the specific number of shoes I go through. (Though maybe I do have some life balance issues.)

Yeah that seems more reasonable, depending on what you pay for them. Runner's Guide says 300-500 miles.

And Yes! wearing out stuff is the goal! Especially athletic equipment. My niece (8yo) just wore out the back tire on her tiny bike, just wore the tread right off from use, and the cousins (all older) high-fived her and told her You Go Girl! She was very proud.

Time for a new bike anyway - she's grown some. Auntie went right out with her to buy one and now she's back on the road.

I last bought shoes 3 years ago. About time to buy more I guess.

No wait! Had a triple-niece-wedding year last year, bought some new dress shoes to go with the new suit. For the three weddings. One on a dairy farm in Switzerland near Zurich, one in Shenandoah National Park, one in Valencia Spain. Asked the Men's Store guy to help me choose shoes suitable for a dairy farm, a forest and a Catholic high church wedding in a Cathedral.

I don't think anyone needs 7 pairs of shoes a year. I have had the same three pairs of shoes (each for a different kind of weather) for the past 2 or so years. One of these pairs has been with me for close to 4 years. Buying 7 pairs a year seems so wasteful.

This would depend heavily on weather. Not everybody is living in California. There are places when you need five different pairs of footwear just to survive a year. Some might last, some won't. Throw someting in to wear indoors.

I'm still skeptical. I have one pair of shoes for day to day usage, one nice pair for dress up, on pair of snow boots, and one pair of slippers. Each has lasted me many years, and I live in Wisconsin which isn't known for having anything like California's weather.

Climbing shoes on the other hand I need to have resoled every 6 months or so.

1. It is not a matter of "need", rather a matter of comfort and practicality. (I leave in mountains).

2. I do have half a dozen different types of shoes (something like 1 or 2 pairs of army boots, 1 for cycling, 1 for MB-hiking-gardening, 1 for gardening, 1 pair of tennis shoes to wander in and around the house, and probably 1 old worn spare one I forget about). It doesn't mean I buy them all every year. I haven't bought any in 2017 or 2018. The army boots are 5 to 10 years old, same for the hiking shoes I use for mountain-biking (4 years old?) and gardening (15 years old?), since I cannot really hike any more. The tennis/cycling shoes are dying but they were already dying last year and in fact they are still good enough :-) So I probably buy only 1, perhaps 2 pairs, in an average year.

It is only a matter of comfort, and not survival, if you own a car and drive it around exclusively. If you own a car, well, impact(car) > impact(any number of pairs of shoes).

Certain types of athletic shoes wear out long before they start to fall apart. Some people might replace their shoes to avoid injury or for performance reasons.

Hiking, which eats even quality shoes because sliding down a mountain side tends to pull apart rubber. These need to be able to go through creeks, slide down mountains, and still be comfortable to walk up to 20 miles in.

Martial arts, because mat shoes need to be soft enough to not injure a sparring partner, but still get used aggressively for hours every week.

Semi-formal shoes for work and going out.

Casual shoes for mowing the lawn in or other house work.

Flat-footed trainers for the gym, kept clean of any oil or other hazards (which is why they can't overlap with the lawn mowing shoes).

A pair of decent, well shined shoes for truly formal occasions (weddings, funerals).

Water shoes, for swimming in water holes and going tubing down the local river.

Note here that I don't run, which apparently truly eats shoes, and all of my shoes are high quality except my lawn mowing/house work shoes, because they're exposed to all sorts of crap like paint. These are just the shoes I've bought this year - my safety boots are still in decent condition, and it's likely my dress shoes will be last many more years.

It also depends on activity levels.

I don't have much interest in clothes or shoes but I do have too many DIY gadgets and an 18 month old Rasberry Pi still in its wrapping :-).

Needs gender breakdown and controlling for outliers: Imelda Marcos' 1000 pairs of shoes should not be counted, but most of the fancier ladies' formal shoes have very short lifetimes.

I would really like to buy fewer pairs of shoes. As I've been walking to work lately, I've worn out about two pairs a year. Seems unreasonable. I can only conclude that modern shoes were not designed to be walked in.

Some are designed to absorb the damage that your body would normally be absorbing. Others, are designed to be cheap for manufacturers. Either way...

I initially thought that an "average american" may have included parents buying shoes for children, in which case 7 would seem less unreasonable, but the link says that children are included in the average.

Growing feet, play, sports, and back-to-school means that parents are buying shoes for kids every couple of months.

7.4 pairs of shoes per year seems absurd, but it may be a case of a less fortunate person not being able to afford the initial high cost of longer-lasting footwear (aka: The Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness)

https://www.thebillfold.com/2015/03/to-terry-pratchett-who-g...

Even though it comes from a fiction fantasy novel, I think there may be some truth to it. I have two pairs each (brown and black) of oxford shoes and Red Wing boots for work. I was able to afford really high quality shoes and have had the oxfords resoled three times in 11 years, with the boots being durable enough that they haven't yet needed new soles after five. I also have the time to spend a leisurely Sunday evening polishing them, to keep them in good shape.

I also don't care about wearing the same four pairs of shoes, one after another in a predictable cycle, all of the time.

Someone who can't afford USA-made leather boots and Italian-made Oxford dress shoes, and also lacks the time to care for them, may be stuck in a cycle where their cheaper footwear wears out quickly.

Even for sneakers, I pay a premium for USA-made New Balance sneakers, and they last an entire year after which I relegate them to lawn mower duty and replace them. They are old man shoes though, so their aesthetic may not be for everyone. If I ran, I would have to replace them more often-- my wife runs and she replaces her running shoes multiple times per year.

Then again, I don't have a job in the service industry where I'm standing the entire time and walking 10 miles every day so I may have unreasonable expectations about how long shoes should last.

So it could be socioeconomic unfairness, or it may be rampant consumerism, or it may be a combination of the two....

Damn is it really that bad? I hate buying new shit. I spent a year thinking about replacing my head phones (5 year old Sennheisers) before getting a pair of Noise canceling AKGs. I have a 5 year old MacBook that I want to replace but don’t because it’s just fine for what I need.

Shit I spend most of my money on food.

Have you always been like that? When I was young, there was always more stuff that I wanted. Now as I approach 50, what I really want is more time to use the stuff that I bought.

I'm in the same boat as you.

I bought new earpads last week for my 15 year old pair of Sennheiser HD477 rather than buying a new set of headphones, and my primary laptop is an X230 from 2012.

On one hand the Internet allows a (perhaps too) easy way to obtain physical goods, as the article mentions, but on the other hand it allows a way to avoid many physical goods that we had to purchase before. We can read books and magazines digitally and watch movies and listen to music without having physical media.

The internet has a solution for everything.

The same way there is 1-click online shopping to fill your house full of junk and toys our kids will never even use, there are also online services for companies that will come at your place and collect all the junk (you need to pay for that too).

They will empty your full basement if you want!

Has Jeff Bezos been informed? If he doesn't own that company yet he must be loosing his edge.

The Jeff Bezos of Junk really needs to be Jeff Bezos.

The catch is: I would greatly prefer if my stuff was reused rather than simply landfilled, ideally I'd like a nonzero amount of money for it, and some of it would be of personal and emotional value if I could find it.

If there is an Amazon for "take my junk and sell it for me, keeping a reasonable percentage" I'd really like to know about it. Craigslist is such a pain.

Unfortunately it’s the opposite. You generally have to pay people to take your junk. Raise your hand if you have that drawer (or closet) full of old RAM, hard drives and video cards that you’re going to one day sell on Craigslist for $5 each? Spoiler: you won’t. Nobody will buy any of that. You might as well just recycle or trash it.

I once took a picture of my computer parts/cables closet and put the entire contents for sale on Craigslist for $10. I got zero replies.

I dunno, I've sold a lot of things on craigslist I assumed would never sell, or that I'd have to at least lower the price substantially. It's mostly a matter of leaving it out there long enough that the kind of person looking for that thing can find it.

There actually is for some items (basically old cell phones, game consoles, and other items which have a large demand on the secondary market) in Amazon itself -- the Amazon "trade in" program -- which, granted, gives you payment in terms of Amazon gift certificates.

It should read: "100 million suckers have signed on to pay $119 a year for “free” two-day shipping instead of free 4-5 day shipping"

It should read "free" "two-day" shipping.

At some point, I was waiting a week for my Prime packages to arrive. So I cancelled my subscription.

Now I wait a week for my packages to arrive.

Amazon Prime has deteriorated similarly for me as well.

At first, 2 days, every time. It was great and extremely reliable.

Now? I'm lucky to get an estimated 2 day delivery. It's almost always 3 days. Why? They deliver it to the post office now, about a mile away. Half the time it gets there too late for the USPS truck to deliver it on that day. It is so frustrating.

Couple that with price increases, Twitch prime adding ads, counterfeit products, confusing product pages, fake reviews...Amazon is worse than ever.

For me it has been the opposite: I have next day or same day delivery here now. A lot of time when amazon says 2 days, i get the package the next day.

It might have to do with living in Barcelona and amazon having their own delivery people here. They even have a summer offer where you can order cold beer and have it delivered to you in less then 2 hours.

Same experience here in a relatively small city in Italy, most "2 days shipping" arrive the next day, and Prime is just 3€ a month (so wayyyy cheaper than in the USA).

It's a hard to beat service.

Same here in the UK. There's only been one or two times when they've messed up and a next day prime delivery has taken an extra day.

I'd happily take your 3 days for stuff to arrive via postal service, because our postal carriers bring packages up to the door, ring the bell, and leave them in an inconspicuous location if nobody answers.

Whereas the Amazon delivery people that are so instrumental to my packages typically arriving overnight will just leave it on the sidewalk out in front of the house and then, apparently, encourage the neighborhood kids to play soccer with it.

Anyone have experience canceling their subscription and then resubscribing? I know with SiriusXM I have to cancel each year to get better prices, maybe Amazon has a similar philosophy with speed of delivery

They've been wooing me by sending my super saver packages in 2 days.

We should keep in mind that under the current system, goods are made before they are sold. Meaning that not buying so much now might have future benefits later, but at the price of throwing away unbought stuff.

And just-in-time manufacturing (e.g. 3D printers) looks awfully slow.

This is literally one of very few ways capitalism can continue expanding.

Our per-capita production have long passed absolute minimum of things needed.

Now it is about convinience, but marginal gains are less and less.

For manufacturing to continue to increase, things have to rot after they had been paid for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com