The Era of Ultracheap Stuff Is Under Threat
wsj.com
wsj.com
Seems like a win on multiple levels. Less consumption and less worker exploitation. We don't need oodles of "ultracheap stuff", we need durable goods and to reject consumerism. Environmental damage and labor abuses are two externalities that aren't priced into our economy. Given the state of both the environment and wealth inequality, it seems imperative that we as consumers dramatically shift our mindsets. Realistically priced goods could help move us in that direction.
At least with anything technological (I don't have much of any experience with household goods or clothing aside from ultracheap, which these days are usually pretty good), the luxury built to last stuff is sometimes worse.
The ultracheap companies will sell an empty box with a tiny circuit board, and the same mechanical parts in the high end one because it's all made in the same factory and figured out long ago. For a consumer it can be crazy durable because there's.... not really much to break unless it has a battery you can't replace.
The biggest risk isn't things wearing out, it's perfectly good stuff being thrown away.
Even IKEA furniture can last decades in a house with no kids at least. Literally cardboard can last. And it's every bit as repairable as old stuff. Epoxy exists. I think half the reason stuff supposedly doesn't last is because people don't value things that don't have... value.
If we didn't have a strong attraction to symbols of real wealth, and we took care of IKEA crap the way we treat fine woodworking, it might not last centuries, but it would last decade
Are we going to get a bunch of handmade boutique stuff with 15 unique parts, some chip they chose because they wanted to avoid proprietary blobs, a part that has to be manually calibrated and gets messed up if you drop it, a real glass back panel that can break, a piece of real wood that isn't waterproof....
If the "Made in the USA to last!" companies understood the high tech mindset better, maybe people would already be choosing them!
Labor costs are the main differentiators for high quality textiles.
If you’re paying a skilled cordwainer 25 or more an hour, it doesn’t make sense to have them work with faux leather.
But a lot of the time the more expensive materials aren't an unequivocal step up, it's more like a Rolex, it's more valuable than a cheap digital, but it's also more delicate, less accurate,
The aesthetics are pretty nice, but there are some cool designs on the cheap ones too, and it seems like you'd almost have to be a bit of a philosopher to understand why people are passionate about it, rather than just vaguely appreciating it.
Luxury companies seem like they don't sell products so much as they sell a feeling about yourself, maybe even like a shortcut to what the stoics want to experience.
Sometimes that means using something that's actually less durable. Maybe that's even part of the statement. "I don't need that feature, I am independent and capable and good at discerning what is necessary and what's not". Or "It's delicate, but I'm careful, and expect it to last a lifetime even though I explore jungles, not because of what it is but because of who I am".
If it was heat and sweat, then I'm sure they could have included a veneer backed by foam and covered in urethane for not too much money, that would look pretty much the same.
It would be cool to see an IKEA competitor that only did high durability items, by pure engineering. If they can't make it last decades with crappy materials and workmanship, just don't make it at all and leave it to other brands.
Central authorities deciding which things? Not so much.