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?
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.
Companies are not people. They have no ethics. The only thing that keeps them in check is regulation and market forces.
People make the decisions at companies and those people should be held accountable for their lack of ethics.
yes
Yes, I feel we are making the same point. A company is neither ethical or not. The people who work there are.
It’s semantics, or a pointless distinction. Companies are composed of the people working there. If those people are doing unethical things then the company is doing unethical things and is therefore unethical.
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.
Is it ethical to do something unethical?
No
Is it ethical for you as a consumer to buy low quality stuff that you know will break?
But most times you don’t know it the first time.
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.
For me personally; the parallel of that is that I can fix things and/or upgrade them.
no, of course it’s not. but ethics for the worker and consumer do not exist under capitalism. only for the shareholder.
And if you talk too much about it then u are a communist who killed 8 billion people and likes to eat kids
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 don’t believe so.
If every product was made with the highest standards of materials and craft, then all of the products would be more expensive. A competitive free market is meant to allow a wider variety of consumers access to products that suit their individual needs, and price is a huge part of those needs.
I do think it’s unethical to charge too much for products that aren’t well made and that it’s a failing of capitalism that it’s not just allowed, but encouraged.
The lie of free market is in the assumption of perfect knowledge. In order for the free market to work as intended (self regulate), the consumer is supposed to have the perfect knowledge of the product, its internal quality, all available alternatives and their respective prices. In reality, absolutely no consumer can possibly have the necessary breadth of knowledge about each and every product they buy and service they use, so the market winners are the ones with the best marketing and/or lowest prices.
And that is why nothing seems to last anymore.
You should read about planned obsolescence.
I will
You can pay more to get better made things. Like most refrigerators are trash now, you can buy a commercial grade one and it will last like the one you had in the 70-80s but it costs $5,000+ easily and has nothing special about it.
And half the time you buy that $5000+ refrigerator it’s actually an overpriced shite refrigerator that’ll break in 2 years.
May the odds be in your favor.
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.
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)
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.
No. A good example is phones. They are intentionally designed to be breakable and difficult to repair. Even ignoring the repairabilty standpoint: the glass backs for wireless charging (a feature that a minority use), not giving consumers a phone case, the lack of innovation for “water proofing” the phone; just using glue everywhere (more annoying to recycle existing phones).
That is unethical. The sheer amount of human life wasted needlessly spent repairing and paying to fix these phones, and polluting the environment is unethical. The default should be more repairable, if not more durable, but no.
Companies are not people. They need people, sure. And it isnt automatically a good thing when they lose. But they are NOT people. 1000s of companies could crumble tommorow with no loss significant loss to anyone. They can find new jobs, create new companies. A company failing because they prioritised the consumer isn’t “good”, but it isnt “bad” either. However, if a company relies on the pollution of people’s time, money, and environment? That is unethical.
My brother in Christ, proofread
Apple is a perfect example of this, yet, I bet plenty of people reading this post, are using an apple product, iphone, tablets, macbooks, whatever. 🥴
