Yeah, that doesn't make much sense to me either. "You'll take our jobs!" But wait, if you have products that are built to last forever, why the hell would you need to keep working for a corporation all your life? It certainly wouldn't be needed to keep buying slightly different versions of the same products every year. I guess some people just don't want time to themselves. They must have some pretty fucked up families and neighbors they want to get away from during the day.

Also, it's not like anybody in the West hasn't ever tried to make long-lasting light bulbs either. The documentary covered that part about the patent system too.

Edit: I like going to estate auctions for people who are 90 years old now. I got an old office chair pretty cheap at one. It was from a newspaper printer that I now use as my office chair. It's 60 years old and looks like it's most likely going to last another 100. Solid.

Well I think you exaggerating a bit. Today best washing machines use 0,7 kWh/cycle while worst below 1,7 kWh. Let as assume that hypothetical 30 years old machine takes 3 kWh/cycle. With the price $0,20/kWh you will save (with 200 cycles/year) $92. Now you could choose: maximize energy-savings and buy ‘state-of-the-art’ washing machine (like MIELE $1500-3000 in Poland) – or pick cheaper machine which will be less energy-efficient. In both cases it would take YEARS to cover expenses made on new washing machine with money saved on operating costs. And now we come to the very point – you DON’T have all time you need because modern washing machines are designed to operate for 5-10 years – and after that period you would have to buy another washing machine – so where are those savings?

I have been thinking here a scheme that would encourage making long lasting products. Why not have a monthly or yearly fee on home appliances. If the product breaks down, you'll get a replacement. And if you want to get rid of it, just end the subscription and someone else would get to use the product.

I don't know if this would work in reality, but it is just an idea that came to my mind.

This sort of planned obsolescence is a complete waste of resources, but it is also one of those aspects of our economy that I've come to accept as unavoidable. I simply try to do my research before any electronic/mechanical purchases these days; even going so far as to look up how to repair an item myself before I even purchase the bloody thing.

I remember about a story from about a year ago about Samsung Syncmaster BX2270 monitors kicking the bucket about a week after the warranty had expired. This happened in such large numbers that hardware forums soon filled with complaints, which surely can't be in the long term interests of the Samsung brand name. As it turned out, a £5 purchase of capacitors along with another 5 minutes of soldering is all that was required to remedy this 'design feature'.
Again, how are these sorts of decisions in any way good for a business in the long term? Answers on a postcard, please.

I don't fully understand that part but I don't think that is what eastern engineers said. They said that they will keep their job because this bulb is resource saving technology (wolfram). That part illustrated how different were economical systems in East and West - western engineers were focused on creating steady flow of new products (resources and production were not a problem) while their eastern colleagues were focused on preparing long-lasting and resource-saving products (resources and production was problem in the east).

I watched that part again and I guess you are right. I misunderstood/remembered it wrong first time. I am not so good in german or norweigian.

We've had that as well, I don't know exactly how old the screens were but they were no more than two years old so up to year out of warranty, Samsung LCDs. The transformer broke, disabling the background light a second or so after the screen was turned on (there was still a picture, but it's pretty much impossible to see due to the backlight failing) - so rather than buying three dozen new screens, we bought new transformers and replaced them.

Companies conspiring to make more money through unethical means? My god! What is the world coming to?!

(You are now reading the above in Adam West's voice)

So do you think my Kinect Killer Robot (KKR) is also a waste?:)

Of course it's a waste, that's why it's fun! Don't you want a "body" that can bench press 2 metric tons?
You're underestimating how energy inefficient really old appliances are. Look, don't believe me, anyone who preaches green has done the math a million times, just go check out their spreadsheets. If the extra cost to run that machine for 10 years exceeds the cost of a new machine every 10 years then it's cheaper to buy one of the new "designed to fail" models. Even at your 92 USD per year that's a 920 USD savings over 10 years.

I'm really trying to restrain myself in this thread, that movie is so full of bullshit I nearly wretched.

Okay, putting aside the whole exoskeleton thing for a bit (I don't care about bench pressing 2 metric tons, I like the feeling I get by accomplishing things with my own hands) let's see how many things aren't figured into a spreadsheet.

1. You mentioned manufacturing earlier. We have to look at where these multinational corporations have their designed to fail items manufactured. A majority is in China. What are the wages per person? What are their working conditions? What are their living conditions? I'll say that all of them aren't very good. Maybe a select few are better than others, but they would be the exception.

2. The cost of shipping for these items.

3. The cost of repeated installations.

4. Where do the non-recyclable items go? In a junkyard? How much money did it cost to ship it to a junkyard and then pay the junkyard to dump it there? How much space is wasted and for how long just to pile up all this junk they make? How could that space have been better utilized to actually grow something instead of being an unproductive graveyard?

5. When the junk is shipped to third-world countries like shown in the documentary, those people should be paid a hefty sum before anything gets dumped there. Please prove me wrong, but I don't think that they do. I wouldn't doubt that their "leaders" get paid some kind of fee that the citizens never see.

6. What kind of health hazards are caused by all of this non-recyclabe junk being thrown out?

7. How much dirty electricity (electromagnetic pollution) is caused by energy-efficient electric items (some say they are the biggest contributor)? How much of a health risk is this dirty electricity?

And that's what my simple mind can think of right now off the top of my head. I saved the one that pisses me off the most for last though.

8. Corporate welfare. How much of the disposing of junk is paid for by taxes? How much do these bullshit corporations get in subsidies that self-employed and small businesses don't get? How many tax breaks do these bullshit corporations get that self-employed and small-businesses don't get? How much legislation is passed in these bullshit corporations favor? This really, really pisses me off. If those who were elected because they say they are fiscally responsible want to impress me, they can attack corporate welfare first before social welfare. There is much more money spent on corporate welfare than social welfare. If they don't, they really are just Republicans who tried to change their name in shame. Did I mention that corporate welfare pisses me off?

Oh yeah, I forgot. Corporate welfare is okay because there are guys with guns who say we have to pay our taxes.

My post was too long...

Okay, I'm not trying to be irritating, really, I promise. But that film is ass and here's why:

What you had in that film was 2 industries that are known almost above all others for collusion. This is the shit the US government tried to put a stop to under Teddy R. and ever since has had people bitching whenever they step in, not to mention undertaking the near impossible task of regulating this crap when it happens across nations. In essence the problem everyone is all fired up about is the free market at work, it is not big G's fault except at the times they've done nothing or slimy politicians have cut their buddies a "break" (which rightfully should be deplored).

Second, they would have you believe there's some magical fucking light bulb patented back in 1945. Really? Those patents are public record and have long expired. How much would you pay me for a 100,000 hour light bulb? 10 bucks? 100 bucks? How much? Those patents probably exist but the 100,000 hour light bulb never did. Who's insane enough to not make a killing making them?

Furthermore that films would have you believe that your all your stuff is designed to fail, you can't buy stuff that won't. Neither is even remotely true. The reason you see so much junk is because we (inclusive, I realize you and I may not be part of the problem) demand to be able to buy a crappy Mr. Coffee at Walmart or wherever for 20 bucks. Then when that plastic hose in the back wears out, well it costs 7-12 bucks to replace because Mr. Coffee's manufacturer knows we'll just toss it so they don't bother setting up a supply chain and that hose will never be affordable. And you will toss it because your coffee will taste like shit and you probably won't know why. We could have bought a Cusinart DCC-1200 or something for 100 bucks and it even comes with instructions on how to replace that hose and a phone number to call to get one if no one has one locally. But we don't want that, we want our 20 dollar Mr. Coffee. We will always have Mr. Coffee because we demand it, unless Big G decides Mr. Coffee is too destructive and steps in as they have with other products.

I assure you, reason there's people that have to be convinced every day by conservation groups to ditch their 20-30 year old appliances is NOT because they are designed to fail. Are there large appliances that are designed like Mr. Coffee? Sure there are, but there are tons that are not and it's on us to find them, they aren't that terribly hard to find.

Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. In that order, this is the mantra of conservation groups. Of course the points you raise are valid, we don't want to use more, but we are still topping mountains in the US for coal and the residents of coal mining towns all have astronomical cancer rates. Energy savings and recycling your old appliance is still the best thing to do for the environment. There is almost nothing not recyclable in your washing machine, in fact all your large appliances are 50% or more scrap metal (I'm excluding e-waste, including TVs, these are a special case). Of the plastics, when sorted carefully you can reclaim over 99% of them.

The mountains of junk in other countries are not your large appliances, do not be fooled by this movie. We are at fault for them, this is true, but if you care about the environment you SHOULD replace old appliances.

Delivery, installation, all that is built into the cost, it is still an economic win for the buyer to replace old energy hogs. It's also a win for the planet.

If you want to end subsidies for disposing of junk, I'm with you, there are several proposals on the table at this moment. Most of them I suspect we won't like though, they include you (the buyer) fronting the cost of the reclamation up front, like the Oregon Bottle Deposit, but you won't get it all back. It's the true cost, though, and probably the only way we're going to be able to deal with our e-waste problems.

Now, I hear people bitching about CFLs so I'm going to let everyone in on a little secret. Those things actually do have a guarantee. When you buy one and plug it in, write the month and year you installed it on the base with a sharpie marker. If it fails quickly take it back to the store. Unless you're in there weekly I guarantee in the US you will receive a replacement free of charge.

What's more, a lot of shit has gotten better. How long do you wear your socks? Did you know in the 20s normal folks bought these off racks and threw them away after 1-2 weeks of wear? They were considered disposable. Have Levi's become less durable since the 1800s? I was in France in the 90s and there was still a market for second hand American Levi's.

Now I know a ton of folks cracked open a beer and wished a big "fuck you, serves you right!" on the EPA when they took a monster budget hit recently. I won't bullshit you and tell you the EPA is perfect, they're a pain in the ass to work with and they don't get everything right, but goddammit, they're the guys with guns that are forcing people to clean up their shit! I guarantee you this is the polar opposite of corporate welfare and it's a good thing they do it. Big G occasionally screws it up, but it's usually the executive branch. When GM got to abandon all those industrial sites during the bailout, holy crap. I guarantee the entire US could have thrown out and replaced all their major appliances that year and had less of a horrible impact on the environment than that. For that, yes, let's demand better of Big G, they had regulations and they allowed a company to violate them, now that is corporate welfare! The EPA, on the other hand, is the one that forces freon to be recycled and tells business at what rate, that forces the existence of recycling and remediation programs, that taxes the producers when they are wasteful and fines the everliving hell out of them when they violate, so you and I don't have to pay for it out of our taxes.

As well, I understand your hate for corporate welfare, but let me put your mind at ease on the whole waste thing. Corporations creating waste is a monster cost center for the States and nearly every state taxes them like hell for it. When you produce enough you're eligible to pay special fees. These special fees start in the millions, even the small ones. And if you produce even 1 pound of the nasty kind of waste (it's called acute waste) well then you are subject to rules and fees that wouldn't normally affect you until you'd produced tons of normal waste. In general you are not footing the bill for their trash, they have to pay that themselves, and in some states the rates are punishing.

Oh and you don't just get to say, "But we recycle! Cut us a break!" because none of those breaks apply unless you can show that you foot the bill to recycle at least 90% of your waste.

Uhg, I could go on, but I'm blathering. Please replace your old appliances, they really are bad for the environment. You're doing yourself and the world a favor when you do. The materials from your old ones will be reclaimed. And I promise, they aren't all designed to break after 10 years.

Aha! I thought I could get you to unrestrain yourself. What it comes down to for me is the people. We like to think of Big G as some entity but it is comprised of breathing, thinking, emotional individuals. Big G could be a menacing bastard but really, there are a lot of people who work for Big G who want to do good things. I'm naturally inclined to dislike anything with that much power though and I think their time could be better spent actually getting their hands dirty getting some work done rather than telling everyone else what to do.

I'll share a little secret too. I do agree with you about efficient appliances. This whole designed-to-fail discussion pisses me off though and I felt the need to vent about it. I'll upgrade my possessions when I decide that it is needed, thank you very much. It's hard to find products that aren't designed like that and salespeople aren't any help. I do research products I want myself but it takes a lot of time. The fact that companies put a self-destruct in their hardware to force it to stop working like that printer example makes me sick. I couldn't live with myself if I did business that way.

The funny thing is I've had HP Laser Printers that I paid barely over 100 bucks for that have lasted over a decade. I go through one 75 dollar recharge per year or so.

That's kind of why I was mad at them cherry picking InkJet Printers, one of the worst products on the market, known to be sold for a loss and gouge on cartridge sales, while patenting the connectors to keep third party cartridges unavailable. Then, they terminate machines to try and get you to buy an unbundled one (though still subsidized). I have a huge problem with this system. But the implication that all printers, let alone all products, are like that is laughable.

I agree, I'm one of those people that researches the hell out of each product too, but it is exhausting and sometimes I just have to tell myself "You can't become an expert on dining room furniture right now," and suck it up, take a semi-educated shot and hope for the best.

In my work I've seen a lot of the plumbing in Big G and in private industry. They both have problems, but I've changed my mind about who I'm inclined to trust the most (which may not be saying much). To give you an idea, if you bank at a credit union your teller probably uses my software. If you have ever applied for a credit card online you very well could have used my software. Do not trust private business, especially banks. As an aside, I was also dead wrong about credit unions being better for the consumer. You know how far you can throw a bank, credit unions can be very deceptive (I know many people have had nothing but good experiences with credit unions, but this is simply good fortune).

The catch 22 is you need the mass produced cheap shit. First, believe it or not some people struggle to afford the $20 Mr. Coffee, let alone ever dream of owning a $100 appliance that didn't come with their apartment. And second, the production lines allow for cheap labor in other countries, which then starts to build up the economy in those countries; much like how any first world country became such during the Industrial Revolution.

If we need 20 dollar Mr. Coffee in the US then we are failures at economic policy and the wealth is too concentrated. We should have a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) and we don't need other countries emulating how we got to wealth, it was too destructive, our technology is past that, they don't need to take the Keynesian path which ended up being a double edged sword, even for us.