Why are the stuffs we're building nowadays don't last?

[lifeobry]

Things that last would cost more. People like cheap stuff.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: funkymatt
if you build something that lasts forever, how do you sell more than one per person? "Planned obsolecense"

I abhor planned obsolecense and have rebelled against it my whole life. There are times when there's nothing you can do about it. If you buy a computer, you're buying something that's getting obsolete fast. However, you don't have to buy the latest thing if what you have is working for you. And buying the new thing can be plenty painful -- the so called bleeding edge.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: zzuupp
But, you couldn't drive a 40,000 lb truck across one.

This.


(modern architecture FTW)

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jagec
We can easily design them to last as well, or much longer.

But people don't want to pay the premium that this would require.

Governments always go with the lowest bidder, even if the quality is terrible and it ends up costing them more in the long term. Individuals would rather buy 10 Made-In-China pieces of crap which break in a week than a single quality lifetime item. And people demand more and more "features", which leads to more complexity and lower reliability.
If you want things that DO last, check out simple items like skis...much more reliable, lighter, and harder to break today than the wooden skis of yesteryear.

Bikes, too, if you compensate for the multiple-speeds thing.

Some years ago I met someone who suggested I buy a sewing machine. This was a temp job and on my way home on my bike I spotted a store that sold used sewing machines. I went in and a salesman named Jeff sold me a used Singer for ~$100. When I got it home I started doing some research and discovered that the model I bought was subject to certain problems that would require part replacement and periodic extra costs. I brought the machine back to the shop and requested a refund. This salesman was one of the best I'd ever met. Normally, I never buy something on the spot without checking out all my options. However, this guy got me to buy a much older Singer used machine that didn't have lots of plastic parts. This machine, made in the 1950's was virtually all metal and the salesman told me that given the proper maintenance it would last for a 100 years or more. I had to fork over another $50 to walk out with this machine, but I did. I learned to do that maintenance myself and still have the machine. To hell with planned obsolescence.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

You also have to take into consideration government mandated stuff.

Take, for example, a clothes dryer. You used to be able to just make one that plugs into the wall and cooks the clothes. Now you have to have all sorts of safety measures, UL approval, etc. Have to be engineered differently, which introduces more things to go wrong.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: edro
Our bridges endure much higher traffic and vibration than anything the Romans ever dished out.

I'm sure we could build a rock / mortar building or bridge that would last just as long or longer than anything from the ancient world.

Plus, the foundations they made in the Roman days are now obsolete. They only became obsolete (stone and mortar) within the last century. Today, we have reinforced concrete foundations that don't crumble and will withstand earthquakes that would shake the old buildings to the ground.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: zzuupp
But, you couldn't drive a 40,000 lb truck across one.

This.


(modern architecture FTW)

Right, which I have accounted for in my OP. But, I'm not settled with the notion that with the technologies that we have that made things stronger can't make the same thing lasts longer. Another thing about our generation is that nothing that we have built will be worth preserving in a hundred years, as oppose to structures ranging from the pyramids to the Sistine Chapel, etc... Speaking strictly from an architectural point of view.

 

[Rubycon]

VIDEO CARD FANS!

You pay $1600 for a "professional" video card and in six months it growls louder than Tim Taylor's binford whatever saw because they slap some cheap ass piece of shit made in China motor that cost $4 on it! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR :| :| :|

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Descartes
Too expensive and too much of the population treats anything that's not treated like a cheap commodity as being pretentious. Look at any thread about watches to see that, though admittedly that's a bit of an extreme example.

Watches? Are you serious, threads about watches? Used to be they were mechanical with moving parts. You could hear the mechanisms if you put them up to your ear and you had to wind your watch daily. Today we have digital watches and the only thing you need to do is replace the battery periodically. I have a digital watch that I bought around 20 years ago and it's still working. Most people would have thrown it away long ago. It's no longer as water resistant as it was, it looks pretty old, but it's ticking away and keeps far better time than the old expensive gold timepieces. Plus I paid no more than around $25 for either of my two digital watches. I don't think that watches in my experience are a good example of planned obsolescence.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: lifeobry
Things that last would cost more. People like cheap stuff.

I had a girlfriend who reflected "you want all your things to last forever." I didn't reply, but I have always remembered it. It's kind of true. I tend to buy things that I think will last. If I possibly can I will repair something rather than toss it and buy a replacement. I have shoes I've had for over 20 years, work shoes and they're perfectly serviceable. My analog TV I bought 20 years ago. I doubt a newer 20" analog set would look particularly better.

Many things will last, some will not. Not everyone likes cheap disposable stuff. It makes me feel cheap to surround myself with things like that. I value the opposite -- things built with integrity and made to last and they are around if you look for them. I do tend to shy away from anything pretentious, however. I developed a strong sense of values about worldly things a long time ago and it's something I've never lost. Even so, there are some things I acquire that I know won't last indefinitely. It has to be that way, and I accept it. Still my values can and do influence those purchases as well and my actions in day to day living.

 

[geno]

Profit margins happened.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: geno
Profit margins happened.

As a customer I always feel that it is not in my interest to concern myself with the profit margins of the people I am dealing with. My first allegiance is to myself and sometimes to higher purposes of the world at large. I'm very self oriented as a customer.

 

[compuwiz1]

We rarely even get what we pay for these days, and low quality has become synonymous with what we are willing to pay. The chinese business model has taken over the world. You want cheap, we'll give you cheap. You expect it to last? Buwahahahaha Pay more you fools!
Cheap labor and materials = dogshit quality and unenduring waste.

People have more stuff these days than they did 30 years ago, but it's mostly disposable junk that nobody will want once we are done with it.

 

[Amused]

Many reasons.

To follow the OPs example, lets talk about buildings and bridges.

You cannot build a 2 mile suspension bridge out of stone. Stone, while having great lasting power, does not have the load bearing capabilities and tensile strength to do so. Same with buildings, especially skyscrapers.

So we use metals such as steel. The trade off of building bigger is corrosion and much more maintenance needed to keep it from decaying.

Are there new materials available with longer lifespans? Yep, but the cost is far too prohibitive as of yet.

Also, there is a price factor. Can you imagine a new home built with all stone? No one but the upper classes could afford it. So we use wood, steel and drywall instead of stone.


Now, to go with the tangent started in the replies and address consumer goods:

The lifespan of todays appliances is MUCH shorter than those of 40+ years ago. Yes. BUT, this is NOT a case of corporate greed, but rather one of economy and appealing to a broader market.

In the early days of electric appliances they were built like tanks. And competitively cost as much too. So much so that at first, only the upper classes had them and the middle classes had to struggle MUCH harder to get them.

In an effort to make them available to everyone, manufactures found that they could cut costs by making them a bit less durable. So much cheaper, in fact, that appliances today cost a mere fraction of the percentage of the average salary that they did just 40 years ago.

 

[Muse]

Hey, I'm not complaining. I know how to shop.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused
Many reasons.

To follow the OPs example, lets talk about buildings and bridges.

You cannot build a 2 mile suspension bridge out of stone. Stone, while having great lasting power, does not have the load bearing capabilities and tensile strength to do so. Same with buildings, especially skyscrapers.

So we use metals such as steel. The trade off of building bigger is corrosion and much more maintenance needed to keep it from decaying.

Are there new materials available with longer lifespans? Yep, but the cost is far too prohibitive as of yet.

Also, there is a price factor. Can you imagine a new home built with all stone? No one but the upper classes could afford it. So we use wood, steel and drywall instead of stone.


Now, to go with the tangent started in the replies and address consumer goods:

The lifespan of todays appliances is MUCH shorter than those of 40+ years ago. Yes. BUT, this is NOT a case of corporate greed, but rather one of economy and appealing to a broader market.

In the early days of electric appliances they were built like tanks. And competitively cost as much too. So much so that at first, only the upper classes had them and the middle classes had to struggle MUCH harder to get them.

In an effort to make them available to everyone, manufactures found that they could cut costs by making them a bit less durable. So much cheaper, in fact, that appliances today cost a mere fraction of the percentage of the average salary that they did just 40 years ago.

You're so full of shit it's laughable. None of what you've said addresses why buildings and bridges are falling down today.

Cost is too prohibitive? What's a lawsuit cost? Our infrastructure is falling apart in this country. We are spending money on bullshit while our citizens are being injured and/or killed because of negligence and poor management of our tax dollars...because of pure greed and empire building.

What broader market is being appealed to when a fucking bridge collapses?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused
Many reasons.

To follow the OPs example, lets talk about buildings and bridges.

You cannot build a 2 mile suspension bridge out of stone. Stone, while having great lasting power, does not have the load bearing capabilities and tensile strength to do so. Same with buildings, especially skyscrapers.

So we use metals such as steel. The trade off of building bigger is corrosion and much more maintenance needed to keep it from decaying.

Are there new materials available with longer lifespans? Yep, but the cost is far too prohibitive as of yet.

Also, there is a price factor. Can you imagine a new home built with all stone? No one but the upper classes could afford it. So we use wood, steel and drywall instead of stone.


Now, to go with the tangent started in the replies and address consumer goods:

The lifespan of todays appliances is MUCH shorter than those of 40+ years ago. Yes. BUT, this is NOT a case of corporate greed, but rather one of economy and appealing to a broader market.

In the early days of electric appliances they were built like tanks. And competitively cost as much too. So much so that at first, only the upper classes had them and the middle classes had to struggle MUCH harder to get them.

In an effort to make them available to everyone, manufactures found that they could cut costs by making them a bit less durable. So much cheaper, in fact, that appliances today cost a mere fraction of the percentage of the average salary that they did just 40 years ago.

You're so full of shit it's laughable. None of what you've said addresses why buildings and bridges are falling down today.

Cost is too prohibitive? What's a lawsuit cost? Our infrastructure is falling apart in this country. We are spending money on bullshit while our citizens are being injured and/or killed because of negligence and poor management of our tax dollars...because of pure greed and empire building.

What broader market is being appealed to when a fucking bridge collapses?

You are obviously confusing poor maintenance with building design and materials. As I pointed out, modern building designs require FAR more maintenance because modern building materials are subject to corrosion. THAT is the trade off for higher load bearing capabilities and higher tensile strength. If it is falling down, it was not maintained properly. That is not a product of it's design or initial materal quality.

Also you are confusing part a of my post with part b. Both of which have nothing to do with each other. I was only addressing the tangent this thread took. He spoke of buildings and bridges (part a of my post), and the thread talked about consumer goods (part b).

 

[OverVolt]

You have two options for something lasting a long time:

1. Lots of maintence.

2. Lots of mass

Considering 5,000 years from now, I doubt we will care about bridges if we don't have the gas for cars to drive over them. So consider them completely gone. Any building will pretty much be outdated 5,000 years from now.

That pretty much just leaves a huge amount of mass as something that will last 5,000 years. A-la the pyramids.

 

[ProfJohn]

Do you realize that the Roman built thousands and thousands of bridges and only a few survive today?

When they built bridges over rivers they didn't dig the foundations deep enough and most of the foundations were eventually washed away.

Also, most bridges that fall down do so because of poor design or poor maintenance. No different than what the Romans and other bridge builders went through.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Take new cars for example they only last a few years under normal conditions, but then take an old car and some are actually still running today.

Cars today last longer and go further than EVER before, by a HUGE margin. Before the Japanese led the way in the 1970's, getting 100,000 miles out of a car was considered a MAJOR development. Now it is everyday and beyond.

I've seen trucks less then 1 year already start to rust. Like, wow. Manufacturer's defence is "well it's because of the salt on the road" well, we've been putting salt/sand on roads since winter existed, why is it only affecting cars now?

Vehicles of today are more rust resistant than they have EVER been. There was a period in the 1970's when both Japanese and American cars alike used thinner steel and hence rusted faster, but that has LONG since passed.

Use your own eyes. Count the number of severely rusted vehicles you see on the road tomorrow. Back in the 50's-60's-70's you'd typically see far more.

And we have NOT been putting salt on the roads "since winter existed." Not even CLOSE. Wide scale use of salt for road de-icing didn't even ramp up here until the late 1960's. Just look at this chart.

Inform yourself better, please.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: OverVolt
You have two options for something lasting a long time:

1. Lots of maintence.

2. Lots of mass

Considering 5,000 years from now, I doubt we will care about bridges if we don't have the gas for cars to drive over them. So consider them completely gone. Any building will pretty much be outdated 5,000 years from now.

That pretty much just leaves a huge amount of mass as something that will last 5,000 years. A-la the pyramids.

Right. Because people never felt the need to cross rivers prior to having gas fueled vehicles, correct?

Which is also why all the current bridges are no older than 100 years, right?

wtf

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Compare to the stuffs that were built with archaic methods and primitive materials? On one side you got monuments and bridges and buildings and whatnots that lasted through millenniums or centuries that were built with stones and other unrefined materials, on the others we got bridges that can't even last a 100 years.

Aren't we supposed to be advancing? Granted that the materials nowadays have higher strength and tensile but why can't we design them to last as well?

because we design them for greater stress than those other builders would have ever thought possible.

greater stress = lower useful life.

steel cables can only last for so long. corrosion happens, bridges require maintenance. stone masonry lasts and lasts, but it wont span the length we need, and certainly not at an acceptable cost.

in terms of architecture, it's got nothing to do with planned obsolescence.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: edro
Our bridges endure much higher traffic and vibration than anything the Romans ever dished out.

I'm sure we could build a rock / mortar building or bridge that would last just as long or longer than anything from the ancient world.

So...I guess your point is that our civilization is much better than the one ours was largely modeled after...the one that failed centuries ago.

Maybe, a few centuries from now, kids will be playing 'Virtual Age of Americas' on their new age computers as we start this whole mess up again.

no you dumbass, a modern civilization has things that impart a great deal of stress onto structures.

what do you think is gonna stress a road more? a several thousand pound car, or a few hundred pound cart?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: funkymatt
if you build something that lasts forever, how do you sell more than one per person? "Planned obsolecense"

This.
You can sell a product cheaper if part of the costing process includes planned revenue from future sales once Part X fails after a year.
If it's a product where the selling price is the primary selling point, then reducing that price is a high priority - thus those future sales can become critical to turning a profit.

Originally posted by: NSFW
People want cheap disposable things now.

And this.

Sure, we can design things to last. But it costs money.

Building things to last longer requires higher-grade materials, more of them, and tighter tolerances.

Higher-grade materials: Don't want steel to rust? Fine. Phosphatize it. Galvanize it. Use stainless steel. That's all dandy, but now you've just added cost.

More of them: Things are built with a safety factor; a higher safety factor is often going to mean that stressed components need to be thicker, and fillets need larger radii. The result is that the final components are larger, and the cost is higher.

Tighter tolerances: If you spec out something with a tolerance of ±0.1", a toddler could machine it, but it probably won't fit very well into whatever is being built. If you want a tolerance of ±0.001", then you'll definitely want a skilled machinist, and probably a CNC machine. If you miss a tolerance on a hole, the part gets scrapped, which also costs more.

Quality, long-lived merchandise is available. It just costs more.

 

[skace]

- People are cheap
- Complexity creates more areas where something can break (thus appearing crappier)
- Products are only as good as their tradeskill is competitive
- An overall focus on mass production over hand-crafted usually means a step down in quality
- "Environmentally conscious" usually means not using the best resources available due to scarcity
- Capitalism does not reward the best product, it rewards the best profit margin