{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","uuid":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","normalized_title":"timeforthingslaborleisureandtheriseofmassconsumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","isbns":["9780674250529","9780674250536","9780674979512"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":355,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Time%20for%20Things%20Labor%2C%20Leisure%2C%20and%20the%20Rise%20of%20Mass%20Consumption","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/search"},"page":{"printed_page":223,"pdf_page":231,"physical_index":231,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"a5afd3846b136762fde4eff1eacee0ee8eb9d94b352a941c03e91ee40d318507"},"chapter":"FOR","content":"Furthermore, according to basic economic theory, under competitive market conditions costs of production and price tend to converge, so if cheaper, less durable materials get used in a product, this should result in cheaper prices. That implies that under broadly competitive conditions consumers on the whole get what they pay for and so have no obvious cause for feeling cheated when their products fail. It seems plausible that material obsolescence in its most heinous imagined form, scrimping on materials and workmanship while keeping prices high, is, therefore, only possible under monopoly conditions (Bulow 1986). Yet for economic and legal reasons— competitive pressures in the capitalist economy on the one hand and antitrust laws on the other—monopolies (and oligopolies) are not easy to establish or maintain. So it would seem that the most objectionable form of material obsolescence—low quality at high prices—was quite unlikely to have been a widespread feature of the mid-century economy.\n\nOf course, even in the absence of monopoly conditions, with price and product characteristics set by the market, it could still be the case that consumers would prefer their products to be significantly more durable than is typically the case. Yet that would be puzzling given the rate at which—for reasons connected to style and technical obsolescence—consumers replace commodities. What sense would it make to add to costs, and therefore price, by designing products to be more durable than the likely duration of ownership? If, for example, consumers on average replace their cars every three years (as was the case in the 1960s), why should they object if manufacturers design them not to last for much longer than that, as long as that gets reflected in the price? Surely material durability should be determined by the predicted average length and intensity of product use? Indeed, an alternative way of understanding planned material obsolescence is as the application of “value engineering,” According to the principle of value engineering, which was pioneered by General Electric during the Second World War with the aim of maximizing the eficiency of wartime production, probable patterns of product use should be taken into account in designing product durability. The idea is to engineer a level of durability in products that fits the expected average duration and intensity of their use, with some added margin for safety. Within this paradigm, products not designed with their likely use in mind risk being ineficient by virtue of being “overengineered”—a condition in which a product’s material durability is higher than it needs to be. The product then tends to outlast its actual useful life. Insofar as a gratuitous surplus of durability increases cost with no added benefit in use, this counts as waste.2 From the perspective of value engineering, therefore, to reject planned material obsolescence risks the wasteful use of productive resources in overengineered products.3\n\nMoral Panic about Utility\n\n223","previous_page":222,"next_page":224}