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.