REGARDING SAMSUNG:
A few years back, Samsung made a decision to re-invent themselves and invest a lot in order to become the world's premiere consumer-electronics company. They were planning to become the "new Sony" by emphasizing innovative and trendy designs AND better quality. They perceived both a need and a chance not just to catch up with the Japanese, but to surpass them. It wasn't just talk, either; they have been doing it. It has taken some time for the marketplace to appreciate the changes, but it has been doing so, and the company has been doing well. Samsung products today are among the best out there. Lucky-Goldstar (Now LG) has been trying to follow the same path, but have been a step or two behind Samsung.
Of course, that doesn't mean they make things like the old classic gear, with heavy metal cases and such. No way. But for what is out there in the modern marketplace, they are now among the best.
REGARDING WALMART:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfranz
It's all WalMarts fault.
|
That's probably more true than most people would suspect. I just finished reading "The WalMart Effect". A very interesting and thought-provoking book about how this one company, which in 40 years has become the largest (non-oil, and by some measures the absolute largest) company in the history of the world(!) has had all kinds of indirect effects on the global economy, the environment, etc...
We vote every time we buy something. Each time you buy a WalMart product, you are voting for those "Always the lowest prices. Always" EL-CHEAPO products. Since almost every American shops there, and the store dominates many major product areas in many locations (geographically America has reached almost complete "saturation" with WalMarts), the effect is to push all the competitors in the same direction, of cutting costs in order to keep prices low enough to survive against WalMart. To some extent, this process has permeated almost every product sold, even ones that are not sold in WalMart.
Obviously, this is a two-edged sword: consumers benefit from cheaper prices, and WalMart has brought in numerous efficiencies in production and distribution that have benefited all of us.. But there have also been trade-offs and costs, which are seldom looked at. The book makes a compelling case that WalMart is essentially a NEW kind of mega-business, not like previous chains and even most of its competitors. It draws analogies with things like cars: when there was one car for every 250 people, cars didn't impact noticeably on things like air quality and there were few road deaths, so we didn't need all the emission and safety laws. As cars became ubiquitous and started to change our city layouts, lifestyles, etc... more regulations were needed. The book suggests we should consider the good AND bad sides of WalMart, and consider whether some new kinds of regulations might be needed vis-a-vis this new kind of vastly influential mega-business.
To what extent the cheapening of consumer goods was driven (or maybe just accelerated) by WalMart, and to what extent it might have happened eventually, anyway, is debatable, but there is no question that the phenomenon is real, and we PARTIALLY created it by our spending decisions. To some extent companies foisted it on us, but enough of us voted often enough to encourage/allow them to get away with it.
In some ways, it's a good thing. If every consumer product were veneered with fine hardwood, there would be no old forests left within a very short time! Especially with the huge increase in the buying population (the emergence of huge middle classes in China, India, etc...), there is no way we could support the entire world buying products all made "the way they used to be". Metal prices are being driven up enough by the growth in those countries (esp. China), but imagine if all the plastic-cased things were still made with metal or wood cases?!
WHAT I TRY TO DO:
I consciously try to seek out higher-quality, longer-lasting things now, even if it means buying and restoring 40 year old appliances. I try not to support the junk-mongers any more than I have to. Those decisions are influenced, though, by the nature of the product:
For a film camera, I want a good one that will last for a long time (although I think the end of photo film itself is within sight, sad to say), but for a digital camera, I know that the digital technology will improve enough within a few years that I don't need or want one that is built to last for 25 years or more. I will upgrade before then, just to get better picture quality. Similarly, I don't mind buying computers with some cheaper parts, though. I will upgrade after several years. I usually buy next-to-latest technology, to save money on the purchase, and keep them a little longer than most people do, but these things get "upgraded" at intervals.
But what about a toaster? An oven? A refrigerator? These things have simple functions. I won't need a fancier toaster with lasers and computers to ensure that the toast is perfectly browned ... until the chip goes in a year, or the plastic button breaks. No, I'll be perfectly happy with a 50-year old toaster with heavy steel case and thick bakelite-like knobs which might need a resistance-wire repair or replacement every few decades, but otherwise will last my entire lifetime. Not a good choice for the toaster-selling companies, but it works (literally) for me. I want the toaster to make toast, the oven to make things hot, and the refrigerator to keep things cool. As long as they do this reasonably efficiently and (in the long run) cost-effectively, I'm happy.
Incidentally, I'm not sure if I have EVER set foot in a WalMart. I think I might have, back when they were a modest regional chain, but maybe not. That puts me in a minority of less than one percent of all Americans! Of course, it is largely because I have lived overseas for the past two decades, when WalMart was assuming its market dominance, but even when I've been back on visits, I haven't bothered to go in one. I'm not criticizing people who shop there; if I lived in the States, I'd probably buy SOME things there, too.
SOME REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES:
I have some dress shoes that are finally getting close to replacement age. They've had two or three re-solings, but still look almost brand-new on the outside. They are TWENTY years old this year! American-made Johnston & Murphy Aristocrafts. I can't count how many other, "cheaper" shoes I've gone through in the same twenty years. I bought these new, and will replace them with new ones at the same several-hundred-dollars per pair prices. The replacements will probably be the last dress shoes I'll ever buy, because I'll be ready to retire in another 20 years.
I'm not buying them often enough jsut by myself to really help the company to survive, but if everyone bought that way, the company would be doing great and growing.
Similarly, I bought some good-as-new Le Creuset pots and pans recently. Got a GREAT price on them, as they were used, but they are heavy cast-iron that should last literally for decades. Now that I've used them a bit, I realize that even at their much higher new price, they are actually a bargain. Unless I get really careless and damage the (heavy, durable) linings, I may never need to buy another wok, frying pan or stew pot IN MY LIFETIME. Expensive? At purchase time, at new prices, yes, but over the long term, no. Did I help encourage production of these? NO, because I bought mine used. But I like them enough that the next time I want to buy, say, a saucepan, I'll save up and buy one of these, even at their high prices. It'll average out (since I paid peanuts for the others) and in a small way, I'll be encouraging the survival of QUALITY products, not WalMart-type rubbish. I'll be getting a product that works great, the first time and every time,, and I also know I won't have to worry about buying a replacement for a L-O-N-G time!
CONCLUSIONS:
In the case of these examples, more expensive can end up being cheaper -- because the products last so much longer than the cheap alternatives. It functions better the whole time, too. So often, financial pressures and our endless wants lead us to believe that we "can't afford" to buy quality, and instead get the cheapest deal we can, often from WalMart. It would often be better to do without for a while and save up and buy something a little better. But since most of us, most of the time, choose the "WalMart special" approach, we get what we have asked for: ever cheaper prices, which means ever-cheapening quality.
Somethings should be disposable. By their nature they are not long-term products. Let's buy those cheaply and economically. But let's vote for quality in the products that SHOULD be made well, to last... if we still have any quality choices still left out there in the market-place! [...and preserve the vintage stuff as long as we can, in the meantime, too.]