News broke this morning (to me at least) that was not surprising but yet another example of a trend that's been happening for a while now. Apparently during the building boom, and especially in areas rebuilding from hurricanes, supplies of domestically produced drywall ran low and a crap load was imported from, yep you guessed it, China. Turns out the Chinese drywall has strontium sulfite in it, which breaks down and releases sulfurous gas. Sounds, and I'm sure smells, great! Now people are having health problems, copper pipes are turning black, etc, etc, etc.
Now I know this is somewhat of a unique situation, since the domestic stock was used up first, but it's definitely a symptom of our country's drive for cheap ass crap. This drives me crazy (and I know I'm as guilty as the next person. I freak out when I have to pay more than $5 for a t-shirt). We try and save a buck. We buy the cheapest crap available, and throw it away when it inevitably breaks in a short time. And out we go to buy more crap. If we would just do what older generations did when things weren't so cheap and saved up to buy quality it would go a long way to solving some problems, both personal and global.
For example, I recently saved and splurged on a fancy vacuum for my shop. It's made by Fein, a Italian company, and not only is attractive it works incredibly well. It's quiet (far quieter than any vacuum I've heard before), it's powerful, and well engineered (since it's meant for woodworking there is an outer filter that catches the larger debris and keeps it from clogging up the inner HEPA filter. A simple but smart feature). I could have spent 5-10 times less and gone to some big box store and picked up some piece of junk that would have done it's job poorly for a time before it's preordained death. But this has become a personal effort for me, to save up and buy something well made and well designed.
All right, that's all pretty obvious and straight forward (kinda like my last post, sorry for wasting your time with obvious observations). Here's where I get into the half-baked theories. I would posit that the drive for cheap stuff has played a much bigger role in the current situation facing the lower and middle classes than it's given credit for. We have a situation where every person feels like they should be able to afford all this stuff that is considered essential but in truth is all luxury. After all, it wasn't that long ago that a car was considered a luxury, and perhaps it should be again. Now we have all this crap that's supposed to be cheap, how do you achieve that cheapness? You cut costs. You cut material costs, you cut design costs, and you cut labor costs. Those first two explain the quality issues, and I think the last one explains much of economic situation.
It's a two pronged attack on the working classes. The first being that many manufacturing jobs are out sourced to other countries where it's cheaper and the treatment standards are more lax. The effect is clear: Lost jobs. The second is if the company stays here. They still have to face the reality of reducing costs to be able to meet the prices consumers expect. They can only reduce labor costs so much, so the burden falls on other areas. The best current example of this is the auto industries. The unions have the industry pinned on the labor costs, so instead the cut quality and put out crappy cars. People learn not to buy these crappy cars and bye-bye companies.
How do you solve this? I say we look to coffee for a model (now I haven't done the research to see if the claims are true, but for sake of argument...). When I go and buy my coffee beans I always spend the extra money to get beans that are not only organic, but also come from fair trade sources. Supposedly, and I like to give these companies the benefit of the doubt, when they buy the beans from the growers they pay them what amounts to a sustainable and livable price. It enables these growers (many of whom live in areas where one of the few profitable crops are drugs) to live a legal, safe, and financially viable life. I say we need to do the same with all products. We need to end the glut of cheap crap. When on a whim you decide you need a new blender you don't go out to the nearest chain store and pick up the cheap 
plastic crap. Instead you save and buy a nice blender. One that was designed by a skilled designer and built buy a skilled worker who was paid a fair wage by a company that cared about there product enough to use quality materials.
Will this cost more? Hell yeah it will. But if we can make the adjustment I think it could make a huge difference. Can you imagine a world where you buy one toaster and use it the rest of your life? I for one can dream about it.
Jun 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 sucka ass fools had something to say:
If I'm going to pay the price for 10 vacuum cleaners I better get 10 vacuum cleaners.
And maybe just buy less stuff in general.
I don’t agree that our country has a unique desire for consuming cheap goods. Everyone consumes and (generally) everyone wants to pay as little as possible. I don’t see this as a bad thing.
The drive for cheaper goods is part of a natural product cycle in competitive business. As technology matures and everyone makes essentially equivalent products you compete based on price. We don’t have cheap prices because people want cheap crap, we have cheap prices because the costs to produce go down over time through lessons learned from the past. The manufacturing becomes more efficient, the shipping streamlined, etc.
Secondly, cheaper isn’t necessarily lower quality. The removal of unnecessary resources can reduce costs without degrading quality. You learn you don’t need a metal part and you get by with a plastic one. We learned cars don’t need to be giant hunks of steel. They’re safer, quieter, less energy intensive, and yes, cheaper, when they are built with plastic and light weight materials.
Third, cheaper doesn’t necessarily mean stuff breaks down faster and needs to be repaired faster. While its sometimes true, there are so many counter examples that it would unfair to call them exceptions. You can buy a $10 toaster that will last you a 30 years. Or you can buy a $150 toaster that is higher quality. It probably won’t last any longer though. What you’re really paying for is style or features that, unless you run a B&B, you probably really don’t need. It’s the same way with cars. You can buy a $20K Honda or a $60K Audi. They’re going to have the same lifespan and reliability, but one is fancy and has turbo whatever, bose speakers, and leather seats.
Fourth, cheaper isn’t necessarily more ethical. You’re willing to pay more for coffee for ethical reasons and quality reasons but it’s a coincidence that your coffee is both. You can buy crap that is produced ethically. Just go to a bad vegan restaurant sometime. Or get a $20 cotton t-shirt from American Apparel. You can also buy expensive goods that are produced unethically. That sure is some expensive fois gras! Designer brand tshirts that cost $70 for a label. It seems like your conflating issues and making some highly debatable assumptions here.
I’m not trying to advocate for disposable goods. I too would rather see someone buy one $400 vacuum over 15 years than two $200 vaccums. However, I don’t think that’s that typical of a situation. Paying a higher price is not necessarily more ethical or longer lasting. Buying goods that cost 5 or 10 times “normal” cost seems preposterous to me unless you really are going to get 5 to 10 times the enjoyment out of that good. For a wood shop a fancy pants vacuum makes sense, but there is no way it makes sense for most people to spend that much for something that will barely impact your life. If you drive a lot or love cars then the Audi makes sense too…
I agree with SZ. The bigger issue is buying less stuff. You don’t need that blender. But if you decide to get it, don’t pretend paying more will give you some sort of superiority over the suckers who pay for the cheap stuff. And don’t pretend your product will last three times as long. Just admit youre paying for that fancy chrome finish or the ability to blend up a pineapple, shell and all, in 11 seconds.
If you must buy one, you should probably buy second hand.
The protectionist angle to this argument bugs me. Yes, manufacturing jobs are exported to other countries. While labor practices are a real issue, those jobs aren’t “lost”. They’re just going to another country. I’m perfectly fine with that. Some dude in Honduras has as much right to a job as a guy in Charlotte…
Bringing up the auto industry is sort of ironic. The auto industry made the exact same argument. “Don’t buy that cheap crap made of plastic – buy our quality heavy metal. Support local jobs!” Bah, I say. It was their protectionist mentality sticking to antiquated concepts of “quality” that put them into bankruptcy.
The unions aren’t to blame for the downfall of the auto industry. I don’t see the relationship between labor costs and quality. The lack of quality in American cars was brought about, not as a conscientious decision to lower costs, but through a stubborn refusal to adapt to change and pursue innovation. Toyota makes some cars in the US just like GM makes some cars here, but you’re not arguing labor costs ruined their quality are you? Anyway, the American industry hasn’t been cutting quality to compete at all. They’ve made good cars, they just can’t make them as cheaply as Toyota and Honda. This isn’t because of unions or peoples desires for cheaper cars its because they were poorly run companies who were wasteful and stupid.
I'm hardly a protectionist, you'll notice the vacuum I referenced was made in Italy. Nor was I arguing that just because something is more expensive means it's better and more ethical to purchase.
You're exactly right about paying more for a name brand, for the most part. The truth is that many name brands are crap. On the other hand, some name brands have reputations that are deserved. They make a quality product in a respectable fashion and deserve the higher price they ask.
I apologize for the automobile example, I should have used one I'm more familiar with, woodworking machinery, but figured it wouldn't apply to the average consumer.
But since you insist. There are probably about 10 manufacturers at any given time that are selling what to the untrained eye looks like the same exact table saw in the US. The prices range from around $600-3000 depending on name brand (I'm talking about a cabinet saw, not the cheaper contractor saws). What's the difference between these saws? There are two, for the most part. One is the name brand. Two is the location of construction.
The location of construction pretty much breaks down into two locations: China and anywhere else (including Taiwan). Why? Because China cuts corners. Their cast iron is often poorly cast, and in fact has been shown to be made of lesser quality metal.
The easiest way to avoid the crappy Chinese made table saws is to avoid the companies that build there (the other option is to buy the higher end models from the other companies as usually the higher end ones aren't made in China, no guarantee). Usually saws that are made in say Canada are made to higher standards since the companies are more liable for a crappy product. But then you are paying more for that product, often anywhere from 2-10 times as much.
My point is this: People should buy less, but more importantly they should buy a quality goos when the do buy. Even if it is a peripheral item. A quality good will last longer and use less resources in the long run.
Plus, Mr. Smooth Ride of TP, if you want to talk about pleasure of use, a quality product puts a cheap one to shame.
I agree. Quality can certainly bring pleasure. I was just disagreeing with the assertion that buying "quality" means all the things you implied it meant in your original post, as a generality. Buying quality goods makes sense but should be weighed on a case by case basis. Often times, the cheaper good provides just as much utility.
I think the primary flaw with my argument is with electronics. That's were price doesn't match with quality. I think with electronics you are correct. The price goes down as the manufacturing ability increases. I don't think this is true with more traditional goods.
Take my example of the toaster. How long has the basic design of the toaster been the same? Has the technology for building a toaster changed much in the last years?
And personally, the replacing of metal parts with plastic is a major decrease in quality. While cars don't need to be made entirely out of steel, they sure last longer when you do. I have a 55 year truck in my garage that is in good shape. Do you honestly believe there is a Saturn (as the epitome of plastic cars) that will be in anywhere near as good of condition in 55 years as my truck was? And remember, my truck is/was a work vehicle.
I'm not a plastic hater, it has it's place (such as molded housing and what not), but I'm much happier to see metal components than plastic.
Back to the auto industry for a moment. You brought up Honda. Here's the thing, I've heard the Japanese have a fundamentally different way of doing business than American companies. That instead of taking the lowest bid they take the bid from the company that will do the job the best. n other words quality not price is the most important thing. If this is true, I would say this is the reason that Toyota and Honda have crushed the American car companies. And it is in fact what I'm trying to advocate.
Initial cost should not be the bottom line.
I kinda spelled it out in a ham fisted manner, but what I am advocating is consumer responsibility and restraint. Every purchase should be a well thought out decision (and I am not claiming that I achieve this).
I think we agree in principle but disagree on application. We agree that our society consumes too much and we agree that, ideally, consumers should make more informed, wiser, and ethical choices. I'd even agree that in many cases the cheaper option isn't the best outcome.
However, I disagree with applying the concept that buying cheaper is a bad decision as a generality.
I don't know much about toasters other that mine always work. We owned a cheapo one forever and it was fine. Then we bought a heavier more expensive metal one and it is fine too. It looks prettier so it cost 3 times as much. It is higher quality. Is that money well spent? In my mind they're equivalent in terms of utility but one is prettier and makes Mrs. Lank willing to leave it on the counter, which makes me happier than having to dig it out whenever I want toast. So paying 3 times as much was probably worth that, however, from a common-sense perspective I think cheaper is better here. Toasters are mature products as far as I know and little changes. The cheaper one is just as good.
Our big break in philosphy seems to come with cars. You say "cars don't need to be made entirely out of steel, they sure last longer when you do. I have a 55 year truck in my garage that is in good shape." Are you sure they last longer? Cars today last much longer and need fewer repairs than cars made 50 years ago. Yeah, sure the frame can handle and accident better (its heavier) and it will remain, physically, in place longer because its made of bigger heavier parts. But none of that means its a better product. Again, you have safety and energy consumption tradeoffs that tilt the favor to the new car, in my opinion at least. Also, its hard to buy your car being in "good shape" when you've spent hundreds(?) of hours in fixing the thing.
Initial cost should not be the bottom line. But when things are essentially equal in quality, the cheaper price should win out. And if the more expensive price just delivers features you don't need, why bother.
Plus, frankly, with how much we're consuming and doing in the modern era it isn't practical or even smart to become an expert in researching every product you buy. Again, the toaster - there is no point really in reasearching something that you can readily replace for almost no cost. I like consumer responsibility in theory, but I've also heard wall street types justify their behavior this way. "The consumer wanted 12% returns without doing the work themselves and thats what we gave them." Yeah, but that doesn't make it right. The consumer can only take on so much responsibility IMO.
Good points Lank. To clarify in regards to older autos. Mine is not quite in great shape yet, but its ability to be restored in the first place is what I am referring to. As a person who likes to fix up older stuff (houses, trucks, and just added a wood planer to the mix) I have pretty strong opinions on what I think of as quality.
Personally I hate it when I have to do some replacing of parts on some of my smaller shop tools. Unavoidably they are made with molded plastic housings, and it seems like they have a limited number of times you can take them apart. Each time you remove the screws and replace them it wears the plastic. Eventually the plastic won't hold the screw tight making a giant pain in my ass. (Side note: this is why quality furniture is not made with screws. With the mismatch in hardness between the metal and wood, the wood will eventually give out causing a bitch of a repair. Glue holds up much better).
So when I refer to the quality of an old car, I am talking about the fact that the majority of the parts don't need to be replaced or repaired. It's usually the rubber pieces that have worn out. (of course rust is a-whole-nother issue, but that speaks more to the care with which the car was treated). I hate working on my Nissan because it seems that there is always some cheap ass plastic part that breaks or just won't go back together the way it was.
And while I agree that a person can't become an expert on every product they buy, I do believe that they can become an expert on recognizing a quality product when they see one, and I guess that's what I'm advocating. Recognition of quality.
Are you sure newer cars can't just as easily be restored? I'm sure the techniques for restoring will be different, but 50 years from now, won't the technology and know-how be different also? Won't the computer chips and plastics in modern cars be viewed as rudimentary and easily replaceable by future generations? You could be and probably are right...I'm just saying - what you view as easily replaceable might not be the same for others. Personally,I'd generally rather replace something than meticulously maintain it and repair it, especially when it comes to home tools I don't particularly value. I think that makes me part of the problem you identified...
Thats an interesting point about wood furniture and glue - I had no idea.
Anyway, I agree that recognizing and properly valuing quality is important. I'd just be weary of applying the lessons learned from machinery that has to put up with a lot of physical stress to other goods.
1. In general, more expensive products are usually made higher quality. Hence the expression, you pay for what you get. I know that there are exceptions, but that expression holds true often enough to use it as a general rule. This is especially true with tents, blue jeans (old navy jeans fall apart in a few months), blenders, and bicycles, just to think of a few offhand.
2. SZ is right. We should stop buying stuff. One way to do this is to focus on supporting rental as an option, like tool rental. I heard a stat once that the average household uses per year or something ridiculous. Yet nearly every household owns a drill. Wouldn't it be nice if every neighborhood had a local tool rental place? Or even local wood and metal shops that you could rent time in? That could happen if we supported the concept more. This obviously excludes MT and his rampant tool buying because he actually makes a point of using his tools all the time. But, our efforts should be focused not on buying more quality stuff, but instead focused on more borrowing from friends/neighbors and renting.
The price of a good is often, if not usually, independent of quality as it relates to lifespan. Its usually features or aesthetics that drive up price. People are often wowed by a feature they will never used, or get dazzled by appearance. So, often "what you pay for" is style or fashion or some other feeling that has nothing to do with the ability of a good to deliver its primary purpose.
Example: the Subaru is a good car with high reliability, but it has earned a reputation and has a certain fashionability in Portland that makes it overpriced compared to other markets (which surely have their own fashions). In Portland you're going to pay a 20% style surcharge on Subarus. Not to say its not worth it (especially considering resale value), just that its hard to evaluate the price of style.
JGW, North Portland does have such a place, the North Portland Tool Library. Membership is free and you can check out common household and yard tools for free. (www.northportlandtoollibrary.org)
I've heard they trying to do one in SE as well, but don't know the status. We've checked out tools and it's a great resource. My only problem is that my tool collection tends to be better than theirs, but that's just my problem.
Also, there are tool rental companies, my personal favorite is Interstate Rentals. And they rent most any tool you can imagine, it's just not necessarily cheap (though usually cheaper than buying for one use).
And finally, some stores will lend tools. (Home depot and that type will rent, but they suck). For example, Autozone has a free tool lending program. You in effect buy the tool and then have a few months to return it and they refund the money. I don't like this method as much, but understand why they do it.
The problem with being able to rent time in a wood or metal shop is trust. The machinery in these types of shops are expensive and require precision, and are rather dangerous. Someone who claims to know what they are doing, but in fact does not, could easily damage the machine or themselves. The machine could probably be covered by rental fees or what not. The liability could be prohibitively expensive though.
Yeah, I'm aware of North Portland Tools Library and the fact that big places like Home Depot rent tools. The problem, as you mentioned is that they are few and far between which often means driving your car miles to get the tools, and the cost isn't worth it. Which is why I advocate supporting it to make it more ubiquitous and cost effective (demand generates more supply competition and lower prices).
You're right about the shop time share idea being a safety and damage hazard. Perhaps people could pay for memberships, go through certifications on each machine, and finally pay insurance on each tool that covers damages? Seems like there would be a way to make it work.
buy more win more
Post a Comment