Sure, but do you need five gaming mice? No. You need one gaming mouse. Which will last a year, so you're buying a new gaming mouse every year. Which means you're getting used to new ergonomics every year. Which means you're throwing away a gaming mouse every year. I've had a Logitech MX Revolution since 2007. It cost me $100. Amortized over six years, I'm paying $16 a year for it. And I'm not filling landfills with dead mice and dead packaging. Not only that, but it's a sweet fuckin' mouse. It's supported by everything, has all sorts of macros I don't use and a frickin' weighted flywheel inside which comes in damn handy in Pro tools. I oughtta replace it - the paint is worn off the side and where it had "grip" it now has "shiny" but it still works like a champ, still holds charge for two weeks, and still fits my hand quite nicely, thanks. Would I trust a Monoprice mouse? Nope, and I own a couple. The difference is instead of buying them off Monoprice I bought them at a night market in Bangkok for 300 baht each knowing they were cheap chinese shit. It's good to have disposable mice around. The mistake is in thinking that 'disposable" isn't an adjective to describe Monoprice's stuff.
I think you and JTHipster made a crucial mistake at this point in your argument that spoiled the rest of your discussion: you both settled on the assumption that Monoprice's products must be short lived "consumables" instead of durable goods because they're cheap, that a $14 gaming mouse will only last one year while a $100 mouse will last at least six. In my original post I made the point that this is precisely the "dirty secret" which Monoprice has busted open. Later in your argument you challenged JT to cite sources and numbers for his argument, and you get a big smack on the hand with a wooden spoon for that, for you haven't done so either. I haven't been able to find MTTF figures for any of Monoprice's products, yet, and googling for "Logitech MX Revolution MTTF" didn't yield anything either. If you can't find equivalent numbers yourself then I challenge you to withdraw your statement. Remember, "anecdotes do not equal data"--even if your personal experience is that they're shit, it's still not the kind of numbers and facts that you were demanding from JT. What I have found, however, are a large number of reviews and customer testimonials for Monoprice products that attest to durability and solid construction. For example: http://www.headphoneinfo.com/content/monoprice-mhp-839-revie...
"Probably one of the best things that can be said about the MHP-839s is that they offer a level of durability not found on headphones in their price range." http://gizmodo.com/5988435/monoprice-mhd-action-cam-review-n...
"We dropped and kicked around the cam a bunch to test durability. It occasionally decided to not respond to the record button afterwords, but it always recovered and seemed fine overall." & "We submerged it completely in water while recording, and it came out unscathed, footage intact." http://www.bestcovery.com/best-digital-optical-audio-cable-t...
"The quality construction of the Monoprice toslink cable is what sets it apart from the competition; the thick jacket ensures durability from extended use, the gold-plated ferrule is corrosion resistant, and the connectors are made from a durable metal." http://emg-zine.com/item.php?id=851
"The tablet itself is made of strong plastic, feels and looks sturdy and the stylus seems just as strong as its Wacom counterpart." Monoprice's products haven't stood the test of time because there hasn't been that much time, but what if they last as long or almost as long? If a $14 mouse lasts nearly as long as a $100 mouse, then what's the other $86 for? Your problem with landfill matter is a valid one, but I'm disappointed that neither of you tackled the issue of recycling as much as you should have. Lowes and Best Buy now have recycling bins right inside their front doors for old electronics and problem items such as batteries and mercury-containing CFLs. If we have too many mice going into landfills it does not mean we have a problem with cheap mice, it means we need to make it easier to recycle them. The electronics recycling industry is big and it can stand to get even bigger and more efficient. If you argue that it is better to buy the more durable (conflated with "expensive") product because of longevity, repairability, reusability and resale value, then are you not arguing that you should have bought a $200 mouse, or a $300 mouse, or one made from a solid block of machined aluminum? (Got my Apple Magic Trackpad right here, bro.) No, of course not, because you valued more than just one factor. Purpose, aesthetics, functionality, compatibility, adaptability, ergonomics. Maybe you own a Telefunken U 47 that your granddad bought in 1960 and it still works, but only because a 1959 U 47 came with PVC membranes that shriveled with age. This is part of the dirty little secret: price does not predict durability or quality. If only I'd known that when I bought my Bose Triports. I could'a had a Sennheiser. Or I could'a had a Monoprice 8323, which are uglier but just as good and just as durable as Triports for a sixth of the price. Now please don't get distracted by arguing over which headphones sound the best, because I'm neither a musician nor an audiophile, and HERE COMES THE REAL ARGUMENT: the mythical "One True Anti-Apple" from my post is the company that doesn't compete on quality because quality has been eliminated as a factor. What the OTAA--and I think Monoprice is headed in the direction of being the OTAA--competes on is adaptability to the market. I'm not a musician nor audiophile, so I don't care as much about fidelity but I do care about comfort and durability, and I don't want to have to pay hundreds of dollars for sound fidelity in order to get basic, competent build quality. I want those two factors to be decoupled so I can pay for what I want without having to pay for things I don't want or that my tin ears can't even distinguish. Ikea furniture is not a concession to poverty at the expense of landfill space. I own two Ikea lounge chairs and a bookshelf that are all in excellent condition after eight years and four moves. They are excellent quality for the purposes I put them to, and one of those unexpected purposes was a 400lb lady who decided to sit on them one day. It tipped her out, but it didn't break. I hope that Monoprice continues to focus on breaking the assumption that cheap = nasty. I think that it's possible to make durable, long lasting products inexpensively, and that what we call "quality" ought to move past basic manufacturing competence and into subjective criteria such as "does my garage band need to sound like the Royal Philharmonic right now, or does it not really matter if our highs and lows get a bit compressed?" Why pay for 18-22khz if you're listening to punk?
I think you can piss up a rope. I own the mouse in question and have bought the mice in question that monoprice sells. In my own empirical analysis, I have a 100% correlation. Me and JTHipster agreed on these terms of discussion because we both have experience with at least part of the discussion. You, on the other hand, need to come in with your cock swinging about MTBF. Riddle me this - how is it that I'm not allowed to speak from my experience but you're allowed to invalidate what I have to say by asserting "I can't google it?" Logitech's warranty is 36 months. Monoprice's is one. Correlation does not imply causation but it sure as fuck implies more than "I can't google it therefore you're wrong." They don't. I suggest you look up what "anecdotal evidence" means. You'll find that it means "I heard a story that." Now go look up "empirical evidence." I haven't "heard a story that" monoprice's electronics are shit. I have evaluated monoprice's electronics to be shit through my own professional experience as a former audiovisual consultant that helped develop products for Rane, Mackie, Biamp, Symetrix, SLS, DBX and others. Keep lecturing, shithead. By you. Not by me. I didn't say "go buy a Rolls Royce" and neither did JT. He said "Go buy a Toyota" and I said "Yeah, because Yugos fall apart." | (Got my Apple Magic Trackpad right here, bro.)| Call me "bro" again. | If only I'd known that when I bought my Bose Triports.| So you buy Bose and Monoprice and consider yourself an expert? You are completely fucking insane. You've done exactly jack shit to back this up but you feel A-OK lecturing me for using personal experience in an argument with someone else. And that's pretty much what your argument boils down to: "You didn't have this argument with me on my terms using my data, therefore everything you said is invalid. Also, I respect no one." And that's why you're ignored now.I think you and JTHipster made a crucial mistake at this point in your argument that spoiled the rest of your discussion: you both settled on the assumption that Monoprice's products must be short lived "consumables" instead of durable goods because they're cheap, that a $14 gaming mouse will only last one year while a $100 mouse will last at least six.
Monoprice's products haven't stood the test of time because there hasn't been that much time, but what if they last as long or almost as long?
Your problem with landfill matter is a valid one, but I'm disappointed that neither of you tackled the issue of recycling as much as you should have.
If you argue that it is better to buy the more durable (conflated with "expensive")
quality has been eliminated as a factor
I'm going to make another reply. I was winded and confused that you got so emotional, but maybe I was "cock swinging" and didn't realize it. I'll try to address the arguments as dispassionately as I can, and if I fuck up at that task then it's my own fault, I only hope someone can point out to me where and how. [...] I don't have direct access to the details of your empirical experience, only what you chose to divulge. As you pointed out, it's "I heard a story that..." I don't disrespect your perspective, but every product ever made always has at least one dissatisfied customer, so I have to turn to data. If I never bought anything that had at least one 1-star review on Amazon, I wouldn't buy very much from Amazon. Yes, you and JTHipster appear to have a common experience. Okay, two data points. You've convinced me: Monoprice mice are shit. I hope that Monoprice gets their act together re: mice, because so many of their other products have impressed both me and many others, which is what I was incompetently attempting to show with those links. No problem, you're an expert in this field. You've only described it as "shit" though, but it's difficult for me and probably everyone else to translate "shit" to something specific. Wear and tear? Sound fidelity? And to what degree? I won't. It was an inept attempt at rhetorical flair. However, while Apple has presently used its buying power to monopsonize equipment for carving chassis out of aluminum blocks, in the future that manufacturing equipment will become both cheaper and more common, and products that are made this way--with more rigidity and fewer seams, screws and wearable parts--will become more common and inexpensive. They will be both cheap and more durable than equivalent designs that use welds and screws. I acted improperly. However, your argument with JT followed from a post that I wrote and posted on my own G+ account. Clearly, I assumed too much.In my own empirical analysis, I have a 100% correlation. Me and JTHipster agreed on these terms of discussion because we both have experience with at least part of the discussion.
how is it that I'm not allowed to speak from my experience but you're allowed to invalidate what I have to say by asserting "I can't google it?"
I have evaluated monoprice's electronics to be shit through my own professional experience as a former audiovisual consultant that helped develop products for Rane, Mackie, Biamp, Symetrix, SLS, DBX and others.
Call me "bro" again.
but you feel A-OK lecturing me for using personal experience in an argument with someone else.
Okay, please calm down. Did I get you at the wrong time? Did I strike the wrong tone? I think I must have fouled up in some way that I'm too stupid to see, and I apologize. I've been following you on Hubski because I thought you were intelligent and level headed, and I still think you are, but I believe that something I said struck you the wrong way. I must have gone too personal. Was it "anecdotes are not data"? I'm not sure, but you just had a lively exchange with JT and I thought there were things that were missed, and that's what I was bringing up. If you have actually ignored me then you won't see this, in which case I'm sad.I think you can piss up a rope.
need to come in with your cock swinging
Keep lecturing, shithead.
Call me "bro" again.
You are completely fucking insane.
You've done exactly jack shit
And that's why you're ignored now.
| If you can't find equivalent numbers yourself then I challenge you to withdraw your statement.| (...so here's not one, not two, not three, but FOUR anecdotes to prove you wrong) | I'm disappointed that neither of you tackled the issue of recycling as much as you should have.| (WTF) (but do please take me seriously) You chose to talk down to me because you think you're superior, you chose to lecture me because you think you know better, and you chose to attempt to undercut my arguments by demonstrating you don't understand debate while also being condescending as fuck. I think you decided I was in a cozy little box where you could look down at me and feel superior and I'm here to make you regret that. If you truly thought I was "intelligent and level-headed" you wouldn't talk to me like I was a retarded fourteen-year-old. No, you said "you guys are missing the important issue which is defined by me on my terms using my data because you're both wrong and also not worthy of respect. Headphones." It doesn't work like that. I get to browse back to see if I can see anything anywhere that might have led you to completely gloss over everything I said while also acting like me and JT hadn't had four or five thousand words' worth of legit discussion. Nope. No idea where you get off. One does not begin a "friendly debate" by discounting everything a person says in smarmy tones. Not unless one wants to get curbsmiled.I think you and JTHipster made a crucial mistake at this point in your argument
you get a big smack on the hand with a wooden spoon for that,
Remember, "anecdotes do not equal data"
(Got my Apple Magic Trackpad right here, bro.)
Now please don't get distracted by arguing over which headphones sound the best,
Quality has been eliminated as a factor.
I think I must have fouled up in some way that I'm too stupid to see, and I apologize.
I've been following you on Hubski because I thought you were intelligent and level headed, and I still think you are, but I believe that something I said struck you the wrong way.
you just had a lively exchange with JT and I thought there were things that were missed, and that's what I was bringing up.
If you have actually ignored me then you won't see this, in which case I'm sad.
Earlier, I thought you were a Cluster B having a temper-tantrum in the ladies room. Then you went and explained it in another Hubski thread, and I read your "On Aggression" plus the links. I'd already read Konrad's version, so I was, like, "aw, fuck." You got me. I treated you under the assumption you had a genuine nervous breakdown, call it "controlled politeness", but I flatter myself. I don't have a problem with how you do what you do. I've been reamed much harder before, and I know that I have to take it. I also don't care how this goes from now on, and I don't care if you don't reply, even as--at the same time--I can't deny that I wish you would, because I'm writing this cuz I want to. Human weakness. Hope you don't mind a loosened tongue, though. So you have a reading comprehension problem. I can understand. Here's the opening sentence of my post: "Monoprice--the seller of cheap cables and accessories--might be turning into the One True Anti-Apple." Might. It would be nice if they did. But what's wrong with Coby and GPX? Oh, I know, it doesn't hold up to your standards, even if it holds up to the standards of everyone who isn't a prima donna. But I guess I wasn't literate enough to write it in such a way that you'd understand, and it's not your fault that you took it the way you did. No problem: live and learn, here's what I meant: "It would be nice if someone made things that satisfied tin-eared, half-blind pig fuckers like me in a way that would last longer than 12 months, without charging me for some pansy-ass quality I don't even give a damn about. It would also be nice if, after recognizing the fact that I can't tell the difference between Brand X and Angels Singing, someone was to make [THINGS] that don't fall apart after 12 months and otherwise cut their prices because they don't pretend to satisfy professional audio engineers, nor waste money on the marketing effort." Of course I don't take this on faith. I didn't even write the goddamn post until after I personally tried their gear and then spent hours checking reviews that practically jizzed over how durable it was. That was the stuff I linked to in the earlier comment, but that you didn't bother to address, by the way. Because you said this: And no, waffling on about the declining market in mixers is not the same. If the market decides that $80 mixers are good enough and it puts your favourite vendors out of business then it sucks to be you. We do not exist to subsidize your virgin ears. If your dollar isn't enough to keep Mackie in business then maybe Mackie doesn't deserve to be in business. I'm sorry, I didn't see a MTBF number there, only a number inflated by higher prices. Well shit, I can offer a 36 month warranty on something that costs $5 to make and sells for $100. Maybe the entire scheme is funded by gullible jackasses who think price somehow correlates to build quality. No shit. So far the only data-point I have on Monoprice mice is that they can't take 12 months in the posession of someone who exercises "coherent rage." Boy, I can take that to the bank. Maybe I'm looking to save $86 on a mouse that I won't attempt to shove up my own ass. Oh, so you're also a blowhard. Kettle, meet pot. Yes, because I'm an expert in what works for me. My Triports are still working. I have also owned Sony, Shure, Sennheiser, and a dozen other brands I forgot how to spell. I checked forums, I talked to friends, I tried them all, compared side-by-side, and couldn't tell the difference. After a while I came to realize that my ears aren't carved out of gold and that I'll give a different and conflicting answer to the Pepsi Challenge every goddamn time I take it. I got pissed off at both the idea that I'm supposed to want something I can't discern, and the idea that I have to pay for it. Which was in response to "quality has been eliminated as a factor." So riddle me this, Spiderman, what if build quality was eliminated as a factor? I've used mice cheaper than Monoprice's for years because I don't yank the shit out of them. Maybe Logitech has cornered the market for controlled rage boys, but I clearly haven't got your problem. Grow up. I'm talking down to you because you did behave like a retarded fourteen-year-old who didn't read the fucking OC and decided to spin-off on the only subset you knew anything about. Some data that was. Oh gosh, I shoudln't buy their mice because I don't understand their economics, so sez a git who hasn't even sampled a whole percent of their range. Of course, I could be wrong, but now that I know your schtick, it's been fun to clash horns. Nothing personal.I think you can piss up a rope. I own the mouse in question and have bought the mice in question that monoprice sells. In my own empirical analysis, I have a 100% correlation. Me and JTHipster agreed on these terms of discussion because we both have experience with at least part of the discussion.
Riddle me this - how is it that I'm not allowed to speak from my experience but you're allowed to invalidate what I have to say by asserting "I can't google it?"
Use numbers and links.
Logitech's warranty is 36 months. Monoprice's is one.
Correlation does not imply causation
I haven't "heard a story that" monoprice's electronics are shit. I have evaluated monoprice's electronics to be shit through my own professional experience as a former audiovisual consultant that helped develop products for Rane, Mackie, Biamp, Symetrix, SLS, DBX and others.
Keep lecturing, shithead.
So you buy Bose and Monoprice and consider yourself an expert?
You are completely fucking insane.
You've done exactly jack shit to back this up but you feel A-OK lecturing me for using personal experience in an argument with someone else.
Oh no, Monoprice is disposable as shit. Which is fine. Also, you effectively paid $112.27 for it if it lasted six years, the 12 dollars coming from inflation. That's roughly 18 a year, compared to the Monoprice mouse at 13.97, which inludes shipping. So if you buy it all at once, you can get 8 years of gaming mice for less than 100$, something like 85$ and change. Yes the mouse will be worse. Will it be 10% of the mouse yours is? No, of course not. It'll probably be 50% as good. It'll still function, just really cheaply. It won't have weighted anything. The paint will come off. But for 11.40 I don't care if I can trust it or not. I wouldn't have to save for it, and that's what matters more to me.
| It'll still function, just really cheaply. It won't have weighted anything. The paint will come off. But for 11.40 I don't care if I can trust it or not. I wouldn't have to save for it, and that's what matters more to me.| And that's what's wrong with Monoprice. As more people think like you, there are fewer options for people like me. I'd totally buy a $300 DVD player, but they aren't made - if you pay $300 for a DVD player, you're buying a $30 DVD player with $270 worth of bling on it. It'll fail just the same. It's interesting how you focus on accounting for inflation rather than the amount of shit you're heaping in the landfill.
You could buy a PS3 for half the cost. Its well made aand can also play blu-rays. I'd actually gut the mouse before throwing it out. I bet I could make a laser gun. Regardless, a lot of people who are worse off than me just can't afford the good mice. Yes it creates more waste. The solution isn't changing the mouse, its changing the landfill, or getting people better income. I'd buy the Logitech if I could afford it without having to adjust my budget. I can't though. Recycling, organic food, and environmentalism in general is a luxury..
And cost $805 to Sony to build when they came out. Three years later, they're at break-even. Either way, the cost is still high, it's just been externalized - Sony is willing to eat it in order to get you in their ecosystem. Your "cheap mice" are just as externalized - it takes five times the shipping to get five mice in packages across the Pacific as one mouse in package. It consumes 5 times the materiel. It doesn't involve 5 times the labor, but it involves more labor - and that labor is paid at non-living wages. it generates five times the garbage for landfills - and if you lived in California, [it's hazardous waste.](http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/EWaste/#E-Waste Recycling Act) If your cheap mice were LCD monitors, you would have paid $30 in fees to buy them. So when you say "I can't" afford cheap mice, it's only because everyone else is paying for the difference for you. Your shit is in my landfills. Your transport effects are fucking with my air. Your supply chain is gutting my jobs. So no - recycling, organic food and environmentalism aren't luxuries, they're practices which internalize the externalities of a disposable economy. You're young. You didn't watch it happen. I did. We truly lost something when we decided that it was rational to buy a new TV every two years. All I ask is that you think about whether something that's "cheap" is necessarily "inexpensive."You could buy a PS3 for half the cost. Its well made aand can also play blu-rays.
And the practice of internalizing costs means that I can't aafford spending money on that food, I can't afford solar panels or goods made with postconsumer material. I can't pay for a hybrid nor could I, living on my own, afford to do any of that with the money I make. I could afford, and I've budgted this out quite a bit in the last couple of years, a used car that's, 10,000 or less, something like a toyota or honda that won't break often and gets decent mileage. I can afford groceries. 120 a month tops. i can afford a cheap internet connection instead of TV. I can afford rent nd utlities. I could afford one 24 case of yuengling a month. This leaves me something like 50 dollars a month in savings, working 40 hours a week. I make above minimum wage, but not by much. Even if I group recycling in with utlities, I just can't afford the cost of being environmentally friendly. Its just costs too much cash. At certain income levvels, yeah, you can make sacrifices, but at the moment I work a service job. Thankfully I get to live with my parents so i can actually haave money put away, otherwise I'd be screwed. Yes its bad that environmentally friendly businesses are outside my income level. But everyone else around me, the people who are less fortunate than I am, they really don't have a choice. When you're presented with a 20 dollar table or no table at all, you go with the 20 dollar table even though its shitty and has massive costs to everyone else. If there was a company that offered environmentally friendly products that were just a little bit more expensive than a wal mart table sure, I'd be willing to cut some expenses somewhere else. Right now though there's no chance. Environmentalism is still a luxury because it is more expensive for the consumer than a shitty item of the same type, and by a large enough margin that it really can't be justified. I've got to stress that I'm using myself as an example only based on a budget, because I know I'm actually pretty lucky in terms of finances. I'm friends with many people a lot worse off than I am. So while I'm sorry that its fucking up your air, You can't eat internalized costs, but you can eat food, even if its genetically modified ground beef fed from soy farms built o what used to be a rain forest.
I don't know when you decided to turn this into a class war. I've worked service jobs, my early years involved food stamps, and I spent my freshman and sophomore year eating beans'n'rice and driving a $600 Suzuki Samurai. Do us both a favor and ditch the OWS rhetoric. The part you're missing is that you'd buy a used Toyota "because they won't break often and gets decent mileage" but you have no problems paying $13 every year for a mouse that's going to break - every year. Why not save a shitload of coin by buying a used Yugo? Or a used Suzuki? Or a used Mitsubishi? Oh, right - because they're shitty and they break a lot. So let's talk about your $20 table - the resale value of a $20 Ikea table is zero. The resale value of a $400 Oak Barn table used to be $100 - still a screamin' deal. But now it's $50 because why not buy a piece of shit from Ikea for $20? So now fewer people are buying the Oak Barn table at all because it's worth nothing the minute you take it out of the showroom. Now Oak Barn is out of business. Hello Ashley Furniture. So back to that mouse - no, fuck it. Let's talk about something that people actually buy used. Used to be if you were getting started in music you bought a Mackie 1202. Wasn't great, worked like a tank, cost $300. Then Behringer decided they could knock off a 1202 for $200. Then Phonic decided they could knock off a Behringer for $160. Then Alesis decided they could knock off a Phonic for $99. Then Monoprice decided they could knock off an Alesis for $80. And see, the thing about the Mackie is you used it, you grew up, you needed something better, so you sold your Mackie to somebody else. The things wandered from indie piker to indie piker, often going through six or seven bands before they were finally too beat to shit to power up. The knock-offs? People just throw them away. I can say with authority that the sound quality of a Mackie that's been beat to shit by six garage bands still dusts the fuck out of a Monoprice mixer. I know - I listened to it at NAB. But it's not new. So let's call this what it really is - "I'm poor but I like sparkly new shit." That's fine. My problem, my objection to this whole line of thinking, is that when you sell sparkly new shit to people who don't give a fuck about quality, you drag the entire chain down and create an assload of waste. This isn't "poor me, I work a service job so I can only afford $13 for a gaming mouse" because you either spend more (or steal more) than that on games every month. Environmentalism isn't a luxury, it's an imperative. The fact that you've managed to justify your exemption from it because the people you buy from aren't making you think about it isn't a sign of your wisdom, it's a sign of your selfishness. You talk like I've never had to scrimp or save for anything in my life, when the fact of the matter is I was offered the exact same fifteen credit cards as a college freshman as you were. I'm sitting at an Ikea desk I bought ten years ago, looking at effects processors I bought out of The Little Nickel before Craigslist even existed and even twenty years later they sound better than the new cheap shit. Because they were built to last. You really want this to be a "rich/poor" thing. It's not. It's a priorities thing. Companies like Monoprice know that you don't prioritize quality because you've never encountered it. And as far as they're concerned, with any luck, you never will. And that saddens me.
I'll start with this first. We are not in disagreement that environmentalism is necessary. It is. I like the ability to survive on a planet without drastic environmental changes, I like not seeing trash on the streets and I like getting good gas mileage. Those are all very nice. They are practically more expensive than most people can afford to pay, because most of the environmentally friendly items are new. Things will probably change in 10 years when the first and second generation of eco products makes its way on to the secondary market, but right now if you want a solar panel or a hybrid car that's not new you're going to have a harder time finding it for less than a regular car. When's the last time you passed a Prius on sale for under $4000? Maybe 3 months ago, maybe 4, our neighbors offered us an SUV, some white Ford or something for ~$4,000. 80,000 miles, good condition, they just didn't want it and knew it wasn't going to make it at the dealers, not anymore. Cheapest Prius near me? $4,500, 200,000 miles. More expensive, more likely to break. Not worth it (we didn't go for the SUV either). Otherwise the prices quickly hit $10,000. Here's the crux of the problem: Why would I buy a $10,000 car that's better for the environment when I can get something that's worse, but cheaper for me by a whole lot? The mouse is ultimately irrelevant at this point; its a mouse, if you're at the income level where you can't afford a gaming mouse you just don't buy it. A regular mouse is just fine; if you spend $100 on a gaming mouse when you can't afford groceries then there is something wrong with your priorities anyway. Same with buying a gaming mouse for $13.97. Other things you can't really avoid, things like food or clothes, furniture, utilities. When you get to IKEA and you see that table for $20, you know that the product you are getting is worth $20. It will last a couple of years, maybe longer if you are careful. It will last much less time than a much nicer table, like Oak Barn, but in the moment that difference is irrelevant. I think what's happening here, and what I have a problem with, is that you seem to be assigning blame in reverse. Customers very rarely go out of their way to shut down a business. They just buy whatever they think is going to be the best for its price, however they judge "best." Looking at them and going "man fuck these people for buying the cheaply made products with mediocre quality" is like blaming someone for taking a shit. Its unpleasant to smell, but its the job of the toilet to mitigate the reek of ass. People are always going to try and live well, and if they find they can have a higher standard of living by buying cheaper goods they are going to do exactly that. Going back to the speakers for a moment, its like blaming the indie bands for not buying the Mackie 1202 when the Alesis is half the price. Of course they're going to buy it: its half the price and more than half the quality. I'm doing a few other things while typing so excuse how scatterbrained this post is getting, but I have to emphasize that the quality gained for the price does not match. The IKEA desk might be $20, but it is a functional desk. It's 1/5th the price of the Oak Barn even if its only half as well made. Same with the mouse. Same with the keyboard. Same with the food. Same with my speakers. Same with my monitor. They're cheaper than their quality. My desk is actually pretty nice, but if I had to choose between buying it at even used price for $100 or buying a $20 IKEA desk, I will choose the IKEA. When I start making actual money, I will buy the nice desk and the organic food. I think part of this argument is us angrily agreeing with each other.Environmentalism isn't a luxury, it's an imperative. The fact that you've managed to justify your exemption from it because the people you buy from aren't making you think about it isn't a sign of your wisdom, it's a sign of your selfishness.
You spend three paragraphs talking about cars and then attempting to use your arguments on computer mice. You don't get to do that. A car is a durable good. Durable goods are amortized by the IRS. When I buy a Mac Pro, my accountant lets me write it off on a schedule over three years. When I buy a house for investment, the number is something bizarre like 27 1/2 years. The point being that even the government recognizes that durable goods are expected to last a while. What we're talking about is consumables. or, more specifically, the erosion of products that WERE durable goods but are NOW consumables. Note how even Wikipedia believes consumer electronics to be durable goods? Do you think Monoprice believes that? Therein lies the argument. You are endorsing a shift from durable goods to consumables without recognizing that there is a difference between the two. Without recognizing that those incapable of crafting durable goods are at an advantage when you settle for consumables. Without acknowledging that something that is used for ten years is always better than something that is used for one year from the simple standpoint of entropy. The mouse is not ultimately irrelevant. The mouse is the crux of the argument. Monoprice takes my durable good and resells it to you as a consumable. As a consequence, you argue that there is no place for durable goods in your life. As a consequence, those who craft durable goods must now not only compete against those selling durable goods, they must also compete against those who sell consumables. And they will lose. Know how many electronics manufacturers there were in the United States in 1981? Know how many there are now? Used to be "made in Japan" was crap, then "made in China" was crap then "made in Vietnam" was crap. Yet we still buy the crap. The Japanese are reaping the whirlwind right now, just as we did in the late '80s. That's all you, bubba. I'm not accusing "the consumer" of anything. I'm accusing you of short-sightedness because you see a false equivalency between your $13 consumable and my $100 durable good, and you use that false equivalency to explain away all the external costs of your choice. My beef initially started out with Monoprice - you took it on when you somehow decided that there wasn't that much difference between something designed for performance and something designed for price point. Things really got hairy when you decided to make it about those poor, poor kids who can only afford $13 gaming mice. Consumers will buy whatever they're dangled in front of them with the justification of "it's cheap." That's WalMart in a nutshell. However, it's unusual that you get an argument that it's somehow the virtuous choice because poverty. I was talking about "stuff." You're the one who brought up "service jobs." You keep asserting this. That's all it is - an assertion. You have fabricated a justification out of thin air that something that costs less must be a better value because you want to believe it to be true. You've made no arguments and presented no evidence to back up this claim. You can emphasize it all you want - you haven't justified it, you haven't defended it, you haven't explained it, you've just asserted over and over again that things that are cheap are a better value than things that are not. Considering my argument has been - from the get go - that this is not the case (with links and attribution) I feel the need to call you out on it - wanting it does not make it so. You've also swept the entire argument of externalities under the rug rather than acknowledge it beyond "but I'm poor." Let me bring it back up to the front: if we taxed the import of cheap shitty goods to cover the externalities, cheap shitty goods would suddenly become "vaguely discounted shitty goods." Do you think people would still buy them? Now - you can try and make that me somehow blaming the poor. I'll warn you, if you do I'll cease to be nice. I have argued, am arguing and will continue to argue that the problems of cheap knock-offs are caused by externalities and that the way to deal with externalities is to internalize them. Buy recycled. Buy used. Buy less. And yes - in our consumer culture, that's not typical behavior. But then, most consumers don't think their choices through. You on the other hand are here arguing five comments deep for it. You're being held to a higher standard. So we're back to "I'm poor but I like sparkly shit." Again, that's fine. I think you're an idiot - If I had the choice between an $800 new Ikea table or a $800 used Noguchi I'll go with the Noguchi every time. Fuck - a top-end Ikea office chair is $500. I paid $600 for a brand new Aeron C with leather armrests and a lifetime warranty. It happened to be made in the USA. Not only is it in the MoMA, it's 94% recyclable. So. Tell me how the difference between the $500 Ikea chair and the $600 Herman Miller chair is more than $100 worth of value. Use numbers and links. Because wishing won't make it so.I think what's happening here, and what I have a problem with, is that you seem to be assigning blame in reverse.
Going back to the speakers for a moment, its like blaming the indie bands for not buying the Mackie 1202 when the Alesis is half the price. Of course they're going to buy it: its half the price and more than half the quality.
I'm doing a few other things while typing so excuse how scatterbrained this post is getting, but I have to emphasize that the quality gained for the price does not match.
They're cheaper than their quality. My desk is actually pretty nice, but if I had to choose between buying it at even used price for $100 or buying a $20 IKEA desk, I will choose the IKEA. When I start making actual money, I will buy the nice desk and the organic food.
I think I've gone and lost this argument. I'll concede it. I will say a few things though. No? I would rather have a durable good, but if the durable good is going to be that much more expensive than a consumable then I'm going to go with the cheaper option if its something I feel I need and its all I can afford. I'm not saying that this decision is moral, that its good consumerism, that its the best decision, but its the more practical one with the resources I already have. If I had the money to choose between a $500 IKEA and a $600 Aeron C chair I would go with the Aeron C because its a much better value for the price. But if my chair breaks tomorrow and I just need a chair to sit on, then I'm going to buy from IKEA since its $40 versus $80. I won't even attempt to find one at Herman Miller since their prices are well above $100. What the IKEA chair is is a chair. I can sit in it. It supports my weight when I am at a computer. I do not have to stand. It has arm rests and can turn around. It is not nice or pleasant or fun, but its something that will last at least a few months and performs all of the functions that I require out of it. Let's compare the values here then, because I still believe I have a point here. I'll illustrate it with a recent purchase. I just bought a headset, because I realized I actually don't have a microphone of any kind for my PC, and that's not very useful. I looked around Amazon for some deals and settled on a Turtle Beach Z11. It is a headset that is not trash. The microphone works, the padding is fine, and I'm not forced to constantly eat the microphone. I checked the price of another headset, this one from Astro. $100. Are my Turtle Beaches worse? Of course they are. But are the Astros two and a half times better? No, of course not. They're headsets with better features and better production, but not by that much. That's more of what I'm getting at, and its why a tax on imports would negate the reason I have for buying cheaper goods. If my Turtle Beaches were $60, I would have bought the Astros, because at that point I'd rather just have a better headset. But for $40? I'll take the cheaper model; I can put that money away. In the meantime, I have a product I can use. Its really not, and I apologize if somehow I communicated any sort of virtue or morality here. Its not about which is the better for my soul, its about what's a more practical decision. Durable goods like a really nice mouse or chair are great, but they are usually not something practical when you just need a product to perform a function. Most of the time that's all I want. I would like a pen to write with. I would like a chair to sit on. I would like some clothes to wear - though oddly enough the cheapest clothes down at good will are the most durable and at this point he most fashionable so fuck all if I know what's going on there - and so I don't really feel the desire to make a big purchase because I don't expect the product to last forever. I expect it to last long enough to be useful. I once spent $30 on an MP3 player from China. The touch screen was awful, there was no brand of any kind, and you could feel how cheap it was. You could barely operate it, and it came with a document called "HUMOR.TXT" that was nothing but poorly translated jokes. It had neither wireless nor anything else. I bought it because I was about to go work for Wal-Mart as an overnight shift and wanted to have something to listen to. The thing lasted 3 months; by the end of the 3 months I had saved enough money to buy a smart phone and just put my music on that. It works much better - though apparently Motorola is about as durable as a chinese MP3 player - but that $30 spent on the player was preferable to the $70 I would have had to spend on an iPod. This is just an errant thought here, but maybe that's one of the bigger appeals to consumer products. They're not good, but because they're cheap its less of a risk. You get a shitty one and you've spent $10. All you've lost is $10. If you buy something expensive, something that might appear nice, and it turns out you got something defective, you could have blown quite a bit more than that. Its why I didn't risk it with the iPod. Sure it was better, but I'm glad I didn't get it, because in 3 months I ended up replacing it with something better anyway. I still lost, because you are right that a higher quality product is ultimately better. It'll last longer because its made better. But seriously if my chair breaks tomorrow I'm just going to buy that shitty IKEA one because the only thing I'll pop $600 on this point is a new laptop, which I will be needing soon as both of its speakers are fried and the hardware is out of date. Last little addition, speaking of my computer. I will never understand why people my age insist on buying Intel processors for gaming. Yes, the processor will last longer. By the time you start to notice that, the processor is already three years out of date, and you're either looking at a new computer or have already swapped it out for something better. This is also the most I've argued about buying stuff in my life.As a consequence, you argue that there is no place for durable goods in your life.
You have fabricated a justification out of thin air that something that costs less must be a better value because you want to believe it to be true.
However, it's unusual that you get an argument that it's somehow the virtuous choice because poverty.
Mature of you. I've enjoyed it, believe it or not. I expected more of you and when you weren't delivering, it was irritating, I'll admit. However, there remains discussion: And here we come full circle to my argument against Monoprice and their ilk: they cloud your decision process to the availability of better alternatives. Consider: that shitty Alesis mixer is $20 more than the shitty Monoprice mixer. You can look on Craigslist and see lots of Alesis shit; you have an idea that it'll maybe last long enough to pass along to some other poor schlub. Each step along the way has been an incremental and negligible decrement; we got to a $80 mixer by starting at a $300 mixer and going to a $250 mixer to a $200 mixer to a $160 mixer to a $99 mixer. Each step we made, we only gave up a little in exchange for a little bit more "value." But as we keep making those steps, we go from something with a 5-year warranty that you can get fixed at Guitar Center to a disposable chunk of dung that they'd rather give you a new one of than even ask for the busted one in return. It's the archetypal "slippery slope" argument but by getting people to fixate on the price, they cloud people from noticing what they lose. Like with your chairs. You're so focused on price that you didn't notice you're comparing a naugahide chair with a mesh-back chair. Compare apples to apples, and the mesh-back Ikea chair is $90. Still, what you're doing is proving that $80-90 is the going rate for cheap shitty no-name mesh-back chairs. And hey - double the price, get a lifetime warranty. But you didn't even think to look. Because they'd rather you didn't. It's a false economy. That's my point. Internal, external, whatever, it still balances out that when you're paying for cheap shit, you're getting ripped off more often than not. I don't know from gaming headsets, but I'm the wrong person to ask - in an industry where everyone wears MDR-7506s, I wear 7509s. I hear more. Which means I do a better job. Which means I get invited back more often. False economy. Take your MP3 player. You've spent $100 on a Coby that's busted and a Motorola you hate. For $150 I'll bet you could have gotten a smartphone you don't hate. False economy. Right. I run with $10 headphones because I know my sweat is going to soak into the microphone and destroy them in a few months. But it still pisses me off to know that I need to buy three pairs because two of them are going to be dead out of the box. Would I buy $30 headphones? If I could. The problem is this type of consumer thinking means I can buy $10 headphones... or I can buy $70 headphones. So there are very real consequences to it. ...but you're thinking about it now, aren't you. And once you start, it's hard to stop. Sorry for slipping you the red pill.I think I've gone and lost this argument. I'll concede it. I will say a few things though.
I would rather have a durable good, but if the durable good is going to be that much more expensive than a consumable then I'm going to go with the cheaper option if its something I feel I need and its all I can afford.
This is just an errant thought here, but maybe that's one of the bigger appeals to consumer products. They're not good, but because they're cheap its less of a risk. You get a shitty one and you've spent $10. All you've lost is $10.
This is also the most I've argued about buying stuff in my life.