Hopefully I’ve worded the question right.
I was once told (I could never verify if it was true) that a crocs company once almost went bankrupt after they made their crocs practically indestructible. Whilst the story was most likely bullshit, it makes me wonder: if a company can make a product that is practically indestructible, is it ethical for them not to make them indestructible, so people will buy more from them?
The way I look at it is, on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money and that less is wasted, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families? So I can’t decide, what do you think?
Welcome to end stage capitalism, where the only rule is line go up. Line go up when you use fewer materials. That’s why everything is shitty now.
It’s worse than that. They use shitty materials deliberately even when they aren’t cheaper to manufacture in order to make the product last less long so you have to re-buy a replacement sooner. It’s called “planned obsolescence” and it’s egregiously unethical.
Samsung washing machines, for instance, use the “spider arm” (the bracket connecting the drum to the motor) as a sacrificial anode in order to ensure that the machine will break just out of warranty. Everything else in the machine will be stainless steel and still in pristine condition when the zinc spider arm has corroded to the point of literally cracking into pieces.
(Yes, this happened to me, and I will never stop warning people away from Samsung because of it.)
Gross. I bought Samsung washer and dryer and they fucking suck. Now I see.