The Dal Timgar Depreciation Thread

Great Debates
1

Taken from this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2187861#post2187861
"corporations manufacturing trash don’t want to hire economists talking about [Planned Obsolescence]. the economics profession has a vested interest in not discussing it. the 10th edition of ECONOMICS by Samuelson calls Galbraith an iconoclast and says he doesn’t have any disciples and talks about a GUILD of economists.

i’ve been in the electronics industry since 1972. switched from stereos to computers in 1978. you would have to be an idiot not to notice planned obsolescence, but it dependes on consumers being stupid. have you ever heard of economist suggesting that accounting be mandatory in highschool. notice how accounting is portrayed as being difficult and boring. it’s nothing but 5th grade arithmatic.
planned obsolescence is planned depreciation and bad for your net worth.

there are 3 types of planned obsolescence. i came up with these from observation, you won’t find them in a book.

  1. true technological advance, i have no complaint about this but it does qualify as planned.

  2. useless variations in styling. increases cost motivates idiotic consumers makes repairs more dificult and costly.

  3. cheap construction. reduces costs, offsets styling costs increases maintenance costs and reduces lifespan of product. customer has to buy a new one making future profits for the corporation and investors.

now we have planned obsolescence of computer software and i found a computer book that agrees. Linux System Administration by Vicki Stanfield.

sorry guys, i’ve got my ducks in a row on this one. laser precision even. LOL!

Dal Timgar"

Does Mr. (Mrs.? I assume you’re a guy but correct me if i’m mistaken) Timgar have a point. Is there a point.

To rephrase:
Is planned obsolescence and depreciation a wasteful conspiracy perpetrated by the powers that be OR is it simply planning for the fact that someone will eventually build a better mousetrap than the one you make today?

2

I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. I think it gives people what they want: cheaper stuff. (F’rinstance, I CAN buy a laptop that’s designed to withstand the rigors of a construction site or a long science expedition … they are for sale … but it costs a bundle to build in all of that shock-proof stuff. Heck, I couldn’t even afford to buy the Titanium Powerbook. So I bought my iBook, and it’s already cracking and scratching. But I could afford it.)

I think there are reasonable usable lifetimes for various products. For a computer, it’s maybe four years. By that time, most of the technology will have improved (more HD space for less cash, same with RAM, faster processor…). But that’s a “better mousetrap” situation. If you don’t need a better mousetrap, then I still think they last pretty long (other than laptops, which take a hell of a beating … at least mine). I have a Mac LCII from 1992 that I still use as a fax/answering machine. Not too shabby. And I can still boot up the Apple IIe in my parents’ house after 20 years.

I think it’s pretty impressive that I’ve driven my car 100,000+ miles. That’s a lot of punishment. I eked out 238,000 from my last one, and could have kept replacing parts if I wanted to.

At a certain point, durability begins to have diminishing returns vs. cost of simply buying a new product.

Let’s turn the Q around–how long SHOULD these products last? And how much more are you willing to pay to make them last that long?

3

Moderator’s Note: I am inclined to regard any thread with the title “The [Name of Another Poster] Depreciation Thread” as belonging in the Pit, not in Great Debates. This new and exciting way of naming one’s GD threads appears to be on the way to becoming a trend.

It is not a trend which is going to last very long.

Please let me know if a.) this should be in the Pit or b.) what you would prefer the title of this GD thread to be, so I can change it.

If I don’t hear back from the OP soon, I’ll just lock the thread.