I disagree with your premise that shorter longevity contributes to innovation. Innovation should include extending the useful life. The fair evaluation of progress is the total expense, including disposal, of the items. So if an item had an equivalent cost of 100 man hours in 1960, but is now 10, but the items useful life went from 20 years to 10 years, then instead of 10x gain, it is only 5x gain. Further, I would much rather buy a new refrigerator because the new benefits are worth it to me than because my refrigerator died.
It’s the value you enjoy over a unit of time that counts. Something that has a short life but high value can be worth much more than something with a long life but low value. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.
Every appliance service technician I spoke to—each with decades of experience repairing machines from multiple brands—immediately blamed federal regulations for water and energy efficiency for most frustrations with modern appliances . . . The main culprit is the set of efficiency standards for water and energy use for all cooking, refrigeration, and cleaning appliances." Throw in Canada's carbon tax and a whole cornucopia of envirokook policies and I wonder why people are surprized with the cost of living increases.
A small quibble, I bought a pair of fingernail clippers a couple years ago that are extremely sharp with good leverage. They work much better than the pair I used for decades.
Not when accounting for important factors. I save 1min each time I cut my nails at about once per week. 52 min a year is worth more than the $17 difference to me, so they pay for themselves in less than a year. Stars are for something you don't know about, and stars don't trump my personal judgement when I have a basis to make it.
I disagree with your premise that shorter longevity contributes to innovation. Innovation should include extending the useful life. The fair evaluation of progress is the total expense, including disposal, of the items. So if an item had an equivalent cost of 100 man hours in 1960, but is now 10, but the items useful life went from 20 years to 10 years, then instead of 10x gain, it is only 5x gain. Further, I would much rather buy a new refrigerator because the new benefits are worth it to me than because my refrigerator died.
I enjoy your thinking, mostly.
Thanks Tim
It’s the value you enjoy over a unit of time that counts. Something that has a short life but high value can be worth much more than something with a long life but low value. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.
Every appliance service technician I spoke to—each with decades of experience repairing machines from multiple brands—immediately blamed federal regulations for water and energy efficiency for most frustrations with modern appliances . . . The main culprit is the set of efficiency standards for water and energy use for all cooking, refrigeration, and cleaning appliances." Throw in Canada's carbon tax and a whole cornucopia of envirokook policies and I wonder why people are surprized with the cost of living increases.
A small quibble, I bought a pair of fingernail clippers a couple years ago that are extremely sharp with good leverage. They work much better than the pair I used for decades.
https://www.amazon.com/G-1205-Clipper-Takumi-Renewal-G-1008/dp/B0716XRCYN/
Nice. But $20 seems like a lot, when you can get one for $3. Are the new ones 6.67 times better? Looks like the same number of stars. 😉
https://a.co/d/dKwPCPv
Not when accounting for important factors. I save 1min each time I cut my nails at about once per week. 52 min a year is worth more than the $17 difference to me, so they pay for themselves in less than a year. Stars are for something you don't know about, and stars don't trump my personal judgement when I have a basis to make it.
You are very persuasive my friend. I'll start saving for my acquisition.
Do your nails grow faster with the more expensive clippers? ;)
“Nothing has left the Earth”