When I was in college Dodge had recently made a major change to their Ram pickup truck. It put them back in direct competition with Ford and Chevrolet. At the time I remember wanting one because 1) they looked cool and 2) I had heard that Dodge trucks were pretty reliable. A friend of mine said that I should wait at least another four years before getting one though. When I asked why he said that there was supposedly a five year flaw built into all the new models and in a few years that flaw would begin showing itself in the first generation of vehicles. It sounded like a great conspiracy theory regarding manufacturing, partially because it almost had a ring of truth to it. I suppose that's how conspiracies get started though by sounding like they might possibly be true. Add to that at the time there was no way to verify if it was true. You would just have to wait and see if in five years the Ram truck suddenly fell apart. Still the idea may have some merit because more and more it feels like things aren't built to last. I know in saying this I will probably come off as an old man who is nostalgic about how things worked better before. I don't know that they always worked better or lasted longer, but there seems to be a definite trend for things to have a short shelf life. Are things built today intentionally designed to fail in a relatively short amount of time?
In most cases a person will do what they think they can get away with. That may seem cynical, but look around at the world today and see if I'm making it up. There are exceptions where people go above and beyond. You may take pride in your work or whatever you do and that's good. Just because the majority of people behave as though they don't care doesn't mean you should behave the same way. Although it can be disheartening to put forth seemingly more effort than those around you and find that the reward is roughly the same regardless of quality. That could be what perpetuates the problem. So when a company is manufacturing something they'll often do the least amount of work or use the cheapest possible materials. You may have heard about government contracts being awarded to the lowest bidder. It makes sense that you don't want to spend more than necessary, but in some of those cases the bid came in lower than everyone else because the quality was significantly lower than competing bids. Think about that when you see planes flying overhead or a rocket launching.
When I was a kid VCRs were a somewhat new form of technology. As soon as the first video store opened in town we decided to buy one because it opened up a lot of possibilities when it came to entertainment. Back then we had about three or four television channels so a new option was really nice. That first VCR was a beast. It had the fake wood on the sides and weighed enough to stop airplane wheels from moving. It also didn't have any special features except that it would play VHS tapes consistently. Oh and you could fast forward and rewind. It really was a simple machine. That VCR lasted for years and probably played hundreds of tapes. As with most things it eventually started to wear out and like an old dog it just behaved like it was tired. It was time to get a replacement. By then the technology wasn't as new so prices had dropped and more brands were available. The next VCR we bought didn't last even half as long as the original. Sure it had a few new features built in, but it's primary purpose was to play VHS tapes. Before long it died. It didn't go slowly like the first VCR. The first one died of old age. The second one had a heart attack. Every VCR since that first one has only lasted a fraction of the time. Some were better than others and one could argue that maybe we got a lemon with that second one. That doesn't explain why every single one afterward didn't last as long. It's almost as though those other VCRs were the junk food equivalent.
You have to wonder if companies today find it in their best interest to create something that doesn't last. For the consumer a product that lasts forever would be great. However, for the manufacturer though it would prevent them from being able to constantly make money on selling new or replacement products. I remember thinking about how Willy Wonka wanted to make the Everlasting Gobstopper. The idea was that no matter how long you had it in your mouth, it would never dissolve, so you would have endless candy. No company would ever do that because why sell one piece of candy to someone when you can sell thousands over the course of time? My grandparents had appliances and tools that lasted for over twenty years. The idea of having to replace something every few years was unacceptable. Today something may last a couple years before it becomes obsolete or simply breaks thanks to cheap parts. Does that mean we're slowly creating a more disposable society?
The main character in Fight Club worked for a fictional automobile manufacturer and was telling someone how they determine if they should initiate a recall after an accident. "Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one." It may seem very dark and cynical to think that a company would be so callous, but in the end they are running a business. We do the same thing in our own lives. We weigh the cost of the consequences compared to simply leaving it alone and decide if it's worth the trouble. Companies just do it on a larger scale. Sony could decide that it's more cost effective to use transistors that have a 30% chance to fail because based on the number of units they're going to sell, only a small portion could ever see a problem. For them there would be no need to alter that unless something exploded. Back in 2000 there was a big deal about Firestone tires essentially killing people. According to Ford only 241 tires out of a million could have a defect. If you translate that to a percentage it's so small it almost seems insignificant. That's probably what they thought too until people started dying. Experts attributed at least 250 deaths to the Firestone tires. In the year 2000 there were an estimated 41,821 deaths from automobile accidents, which means that the Firestone problem was responsible for less than .6% of those. If the media hadn't caught wind of the story it's very possible that Ford/Firestone would have kept on manufacturing the tire. Strange how the story from Fight Club became reality not too long afterward.
Lately there has been this big push for things that are "Green". Hollywood and the media have been shoving it down our throats, trying to show how in touch they are with doing the right thing. While I think the sentiment is good, it often feels like they only just discovered there was a problem or it's just another trend that will go away once it stops getting attention. Ultimately it's part of a larger issue that there is a finite amount of resources for anything and at this point in time, where we are supposedly the most technologically advanced as we've ever been, one has to wonder if it's antiquated mindsets that are misusing what we have left in order to make a quick buck. Although sometimes it's hard to fault them for doing what they feel is necessary to make a living. Still there has to be some way to balance expense with quality so that everyone gets what they want.
