Now, this is the trading standards that we all ask for; not “be more racist” or repeal the protection on lgbt. Christ, American fascism is the weirdest i have seen. Fascism in the past didn’t even try to dictate the laws and regulations of other countries.
When buying future appliances, I have to be sure to get them from the EU. Standards in the US are going to be below the floor.
Prepare to pay out the ass for that though. Between tariffs and a weakening dollar.
Why? We don’t buy products like this from the US. If its imported its coming from China.
Quick edit: I clearly misread the comment you replied to
This is a good first step. The next would be to lower the ridiculous amount of electronics in them and remove wifi and telemetry functionality. A dish washer should never have to connect to a server to do its job.
Electronics in general should last longer, just like back in the day.
Plenty of short-lived stuff back then, too. Survivorship bias means that all the stuff that happened to survive to today is not necessarily representative of the typical thing that was manufactured back then.
Well yes it’s ridiculous we have (in EU) a mandatory warranty of only 2 years on anything electronic.
Phones should be 5 years. Appliances should be 10 and cars 15 or 200k kilometers. How have we normalized the fact that it’s okay for a car to break down after two years and the manufacturer is not on the hook ?
I think about the lightbulb cartel all the time. How has no one managed to recreate those super long lasting bulbs in all this time?
Aren’t led “bulbs” really durable? I’m using mostly led and feel like they last longer because they don’t heat up and cool down as bad…
IIRC in LEDs its normally the transformer that dies rather than the LED.
We really need to stop with this “build to break” mentality for products. Our wastes, as humanity, would significantly lower and reduce wastes…. But hey, we also have to think of the investor’s, right?
And work without apps.
You can buy LED lightbulbs that all have their own apps. It’s getting ridiculous
To be fair most do work without the app. The app is for remote control and other features like colors usually.
Hell yeah. This is the good shit.
Do like Dubai (for this instance) and demand better LED bulbs too.
Dude I love Big Clive.
If you read into it, the video is misleading and the bulbs aren’t as good as it claims. They don’t go out but they suck when it comes to the light they produce
This drives me nuts. I only buy Philips LEDs now since the others only seem to last a year, which is infuriating.
I only use IKEA, and they last forever for me.
That’s weird. I tried IKEA first and they died super quick too. Only thing that makes sense to me is they are somehow overheating which doesn’t make sense since they weren’t fully enclosed and room temp is normal.
Maybe I’ve give them ago again, it was 5+ years ago I tried them.
My first Led for a regular lamp at home was an Osram for nearly 20€. It died after ca. 3 years. After that Ikea had launched their cheap LEDs and I started buying them. I can’t really say how long each of them lasted, but I moved and started reusing them in different lamps. I guess most of them are over 5 years old by now. Every now and then one of them dies but my subjective feelings is that they offer great value.
Well this mandate all but guarantees no trade deal will be made with the US. The things we do make don’t last long.
A welcome mandate, especially for electronics. However people are already throwing away so much perfectly fine furniture that I don‘t think it will help much in that regard. A lot of people want something new, not something that just works.
People have been conditioned to throw away perfectly good shit, now we are surprised they throw away shit. This policy is obviously not gonna fix the issue on its own, but as you said, it’s welcome.
This is absolutely true and sad, though I get a lot of free electronics to dismantle by rummaging through trash. People have no appreciation of the value of “used” items that either work perfectly fine or have a minor issue that prevents them from working but is easily fixable, e.g. a broken cable (I have many working devices that were thrown away because the cable is severed, which I could easily fix). I think only proper education in this regard will improve things long term.
Where are you living? Here people give away (emmaus for example) or sell it online, for cheap equals you don’t even need to throw it away, someone comes and picks it up for you.
Those appliances are so simple too, making them durable is very low cost. Good move EU.
Where I live you can easily give your stuff away or donate it to a charity shop, but it’s a tiny bit less effort to chuck it in the trash so there are people who do that. Not all of them, thank god, but you can come across decent stuff every one in a while. Do have to say people are more likely to dump cheap stuff than reliable stuff from known brands.
Yeah they buy new because the advertisements give you idea that new is cool, brainwashing one into consuming. We should ban ads
Disposable culture is a blight on society…
I specifically want new because I already know even the new won’t last long don’t even mind something someone has used for a few years already
Well, for furniture, I totally agree with you and honestly: I don’t think there is eomething wrong with redesigning your living room every 10 years, especially when you move around.
I mainly want to be able to buy old washing machines, dish washers, TVs, because I don’t care about their appearance.
If it’s quality furniture you can sell or donate it. If it’s recent Ikea or other cheap stuff, it won’t survive being disassembled, moved and reassembled. Ikea’s surfaces scratch so easily, even on desks. It’s ridiculous. That kind of fast furniture is terribly unsustainable. But I wouldn’t be bothered if you bought a new sofa every ten years and make someone else happy with a used sofa that will last another ten years in it’s new home.
If the produced stuff last longer it wouldn’t mean there would be less competition on innovation, people would still have a reason to sell you their old appliances because they want certain new function. This law is against making stuff that can’t be repaired or breaks easily. Don’t think you’d buy a 2 year old tv if it doesn’t work, right.
The three biggest things that kill a tyre are;
- shitty roads
- aggressive driving
- heavy vehicles (like EVs and oversized SUVs)
That said, cheaper tyres are typically made of cheaper compounds that age poorly.
Never buy cheap tires - they are your only contact with the road. You can have the best car in the world, and shitty tires will make it worthless.
There are videos on the subject, making the point of buying good tires, cause they will save your life.
Under inflation is terrible for longevity, handling, and safety. You should maintain proper tire pressure.
shitty roads
Cars (as you said, some more, some less) themselves destroy roads
That last point sticks with me.
I always used to get the cheapest, shittest tyres just because cost, but since I became a driving instructor a few years back I got into the mentality of thinking “I need decent tyres because I don’t want my learners to lose control of the car”
Normally I’d buy tyres once every 6-8 months after squeezing out every morsel of life from them, but my current Bridgestone tyres have been on for nearly a year now - doing driving instructor mileage on top of my usual - and they’re not showing any signs of needing replacing yet.
The fact is I’m actually saving money doing it this way, because whilst the tyres are more expensive, I’m replacing them much less often.
I’m going to try out Pirelli next because it sounds like they’ve started lining the inside of some of their tyres with that puncture repair stuff and padding them out with foam to significantly reduce road noise.
Obligatory Pratchett:
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
I’ve carried that with me for years. I always try to buy long-lasting quality items for this very reason.
Not to mention that, due to inflation, those ten dollar boots themselves will cost 20 to 30 dollars before long.
That’s weird. I’m changing tires every 2 to 3 years and so is the norm in Europe.
They did mention being a driving instructor. Driving (and teaching students to drive) all day every day is going to put a lot more wear on the tires than a typical driver.
They also mentioned getting good tires after they started doing that, not before
Yeah I put 30k+ miles on the car just doing instructing, then I often also drive when I go on holiday, putting at least a good 500-600 miles on the car if I go away on the weekend (which is often).
I’ve had dedicated works vehicles which I’ve put fewer miles on the clock 😂
It’s a good thing they think about this. With that said, the tires can wait. Let’s start with the low hanging fruit. It’s a crime that critical components in home appliances break so easily and are so hard to fix.
Or impossible to buy spares for, or when you can get the spare part it’s often so expensive with shipping that it’s almost worth buying a new appliance on offer with the warranty that comes with it.
Tiny plastic part that holds the handle to my fridge broke. Need a new 50 cent plastic part.
GE wants $200 to replace all 3 metal handle assemblies. Can’t just get the plastic part, it comes in a bundle with all 3 metal handles. Which would immediately go in the garbage.
If we can’t get them on the “intentionally gouging customers” angle, we can surely get them on the “creating excess waste” angle.
Find someone with a 3D printer?
Exactly this. I recently had my clothes washer break. Spent days researching the problem, taking the thing apart, figuring out the cause was the spindle on the back of the drum having a crack and eventually breaking. I eventually found a replacement part which had a slightly different part number but research showed it should be compatible. $400 for the part. $130 shipping, plus tax came out to just shy of $600. 2 week lead time to get the part, and no certainty I’d be able to put it all back together. Professional appliance repair wouldn’t have made financial sense either, I called around.
I ended up ordering a new one for $800 all in, saving many headaches. Had it two days later and was able to catch up on laundry.
Fundamentally, you’re never going to be able to compete with the economies of scale of an assembly line with the same people putting together all the parts that were shipped to the same place. If the repairman has to keep an inventory of hundreds of parts for dozens of models, and drive around to where he only has time to diagnose and fix 2 appliances per day, while the factory worker can install a part for 100 appliances per day, there will always be a gap between the price of replacement versus the price of repair.
Some stuff are just ridiculously tedious to service due to their design.
Asus laptops are notorious for this. I remember having to take apart everything including the mainboard just to replace the RAM module.
On a similar note, in car context, I’ve read about instances where one needed to take out the whole engine just to replace the spark plug. I think it was Mercedes A series, as well as some Wuling.
Spark plugs hit home. The back 4 in my Lexus are a real pain in the arse to get to. they’re iridium so they dont have to be done as regularly but when they do it’s a good few hours work even for a professional
To be honest anything on a modern engine is impossible, I had headlights that needed part of the bumper and wheel arch removing, just to change a bulb
I wonder how this translates to tires. Generally, softer rubber translates to more grip and faster wear, and other way around. Does this mean that the tires will be less grippy then?
Mandatory alignment checks?
Isn’t this already a thing in the yearly technical check?
Idk, I’m in the u.s. without any inspections whatsoever. There’s an app that works with newer ios devices that can check very accurately because of the finer tuned gyroscope. Hopefully an android variant comes soon. Then trucks, buses etc. can check every trip without a lot of hastle.
Wait what the fuck, you don’t have yearly technical inspections there? So people can drive whatever deathtraps without functional brakes or shit?
I’d call USA a developing country but that’d imply positive change over time
It depends on the State.
Yeah, it’s kinda bullshit when you see perfectly smooth tires on a grain truck, which also doesn’t require a special license if driven by a farmer or their family. I think you could be 16 or 18 and hop into a truck to haul 20 tons of grain with a car license.
Did not happen here in Finland just a few days ago.
The way I see it, they check mostly for stuff that could result in unsafe breakage/conditions, endangering yourself and others.
Of course misaligned front tires aren’t good even if you ignore tire wear, but they don’t make your car a death trap.
Not saying I’m agreeing with this, just my observation. Some of the things that are important to them, while others aren’t even checked, the logic eludes me.
That feels like a move on the slippery slope from a market economy to a planning economy.
The objective is honorable, but better value should come from customer choices, not from regulations.
Instead of making those rules and establishing institutions that enforce them, the EU should create infrastructure that allows consumers to compare products objectively. Add the opportunity to finance more expensive but also more durable products easily and there is no need to suffocate everything in regulations.
I should add that this recreates the limited housing markets for consumer goods. This is going to make life more expensive despite each rule being very reasonable. The promise of the EU were free markets, but the opposite is happening.
Well you either have a plan to help people or the plan automatically devolves to “extract as much rent as possible from the people”.
Yes, and that’s why competition is needed so that the ‘as much rent as possible’ is minimized. I am not arguing against a helpful society. We don’t exchange goods for compassion but for money so we need competition.
We don’t exchange goods for compassion
We actually do that all the time. Altruism takes many forms. Or if you wanna be a nerd you can call it Mutual Aid.
Edit: sorry I’ll stop pecking at you, it also took me a long time to deprogram from “Keynesian/Chicago economics is 100% right about human behavior.”
I wouldn’t mind switching to a society that is built on altruism. My point is that the EU is not an inherent benevolent government. These regulations will be abused and I believe that there would be less abuse if we spent the resources on infrastructure that allows the consumers to make better decisions.
Ah, the dream of a libertarian paradise.
The promise of the EU were free markets
Free as in fewer hurdles between nations, not as in “the market will take care of everything”.
but the opposite is happening.
Yeah, no. The EU has always strived for a balance there. You bringing up the spectre of “planning economy” is just fearmongering.
You wouldn’t happen to work at the Internet Research Agency?
Why can’t you have both? Create the best value for customers, but you have to adhere to these regulations.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me.
Regulatory capture. It already exists in the housing market, medical equipment, medical drugs, etc. There, things are more expensive than necessary.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
The shift in responsibility to the EU is not free. Of course, it costs some taxes to run the institutions that enforce the regulations. But who is supervising those institutions? That would be up to the citizens, instead of comparing products directly.
Are citizens going to do that? Have citizens checked the sourcing of the covid vaccines?
but better value should come from customer choices, not from regulations.
You mean lower value should come from misleading advertisement, incomplete information, irrational behaviour of actors, and other forms of market failure. Because that is how it works out in the real world.
Also, quoth the constitution (or well what passes as one for the EU), Article 3(3) TEU:
The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.
Get out of here with Ayn Rand’s fever dreams.
the EU should create infrastructure that allows consumers to compare products objectively
forms of market failure. Because that is how it works out in the real world
I think that it is better to improve the markets and minimize the market failures instead of trying to regulate everything.
Everything has to be checked by institutions if consumers are kept ignorant whereas competent consumers do that work for free.
Improving markets means regulation. Rating systems as you propose them are easily influenced and gamed by companies and subject to the same information and irrationality problems that individual consumer behaviour are.
Lastly, don’t think that such EU regulations aren’t initiated by and pushed for by consumer advocate groups. The commission is not in the habit of going around, saying “where is a market segment that isn’t regulated and what pointless shit can we accost them with”. If things work fine they just plainly let things be.
Thing is: There’s always going to be chuds saying “REEEE I want a more powerful vacuum” and go with the one with the higher wattage number on the box, no matter what comparison portals say about actual performance. Those portals are nothing new, they have existed for a long time. Yet companies did get into a wattage war, and to write a bigger number on the box so that people would buy it you need to use a bigger motor and use more energy. Problem being: Noone is helped by vacuums which stick to the floor, so you also have to leak, and be loud. All that extra power, good for nothing.
There’s exactly one way out of such a market failure: Regulation. “vacuums may not use more than X watt per Y of sucking power”.
That’s a good argument but doesn’t fit the situation. The bad buying decisions can be corrected with market mechanisms. Allow people to finance the products over the entire expected lifetime. Then high quality goods are cheaper and people will choose them.
Some people speculated that Britain left the EU because they believe in markets whereas many EU countries don’t. This could be one of many decisions that put the EU onto a different trajectory. We will see in 20 years if the EU can stay on top of its regulations.
Allow people to finance the products over the entire expected lifetime.
So you want to capture regulation in the name of the banks and whatever presumably private (because markets!!!11) agency does the life expectancy rating while simultaneously letting the manufacturers off the hook warranty-wise. Got you.
Some people speculated that Britain left the EU because they believe in markets whereas many EU countries don’t.
Those people are stupid. At least in so far as “they” refers to Britons at large. If with “they” you mean certain nobs and posh folks and with “market” you mean “offshore tax havens” then you have a point.
Brexit was pushed for by Atlas network members, notably against opposition from Atlas members from anywhere else in the world, right before the EU started tightening regulations on tax havens. Coincidence? You tell me. The rest of those neoliberal fucks rather pay taxes than burn the cake they’re eating.
We will see in 20 years if the EU can stay on top of its regulations.
The EU Commission, back then in the form of the ECSC High Authority, has been doing this stuff since 1952. All European post-war prosperity is based on this kind of approach. Details differ but by and large the European economical policy is ordoliberal.
