Just a wondering of how, if pricing was done differently, things would be built without obsolescence. What I am saying is: a company designs a product and builds it and offers it for sale for a price that covers the cost plus profit. the purchaser uses the product and one of two things happen: the product wears out and needs to be replaced OR the product is so good that it virtually never wears out, so doesn't need to be replaced.
In the first design, the producer has a steady business because the thing wears out and needs to be replaced. The business thrives. In the second design, once everyone that needs the item has one, there are no further sales and the company goes out of business.
Any thoughts on how pricing could be done differently so that people could have quality long lasting items without the companies that make them going broke?
Second wondering: A company produces a tool, for example a hammer and sells it for cost plus profit. A carpenter buys the hammer and uses it for 40 years, pounding thousands of nails and framing hundreds of houses. As presently priced, all earnings from the use of the hammer go to the carpenter. What portion of the earnings are attributed to the hammer and those who produced it?
I think there's a second factor to consider here. Namely, most stuff people buy
is rapidly obsolescent, no matter how well made.
Take cars as an example. In 2000, you could buy a cheap ford, or you could buy a top of the line S class Mercedes (likely the most advanced car on the planet at the time). The Ford might be built to last 10 years, the Mercedes might (although actually maybe not) be built to a quality to last 30+. The Mercedes was undeniably a better car at the time as well. But then it should be, it cost 10x the price.
Fast forwards 10 years, the Ford is scrap, the Merc soldiers on. But then, the Merc is now 10 years old. All the stuff that made the Merc so impressive in 2000 is now fairly commonplace. Radar guided cruise control, whisper quiet engine with 300hp, air suspension, parking sensors, satellite navigation, ventilated heat and cool seats, infotainment. All (or at least most) could be had on a new Ford by 2010 anyway. So it's a question of buying 2 Fords over 20 years for say $40k in modern money, or one Merc over 20 years for $200K in modern money, and a mere 10 years later having almost exactly the same experience anyway (maybe even better in the modern Ford in some ways), and the comfort of a new vehicle with a warranty. The Merc makes no financial sense, unless you value the cool factor of having a very fancy car for that period 2000-2005 when you had stuff that nobody else did.
The situation is the same with most everything. Buy a very expensive phone built to exacting standards of quality expecting it to last 30 years, and it might, but it doesn't matter how well made it is, it's still outdated junk in 5. Computer, ditto, kitchen appliances, possibly ditto, a TV, ditto again. For most stuff people buy as big ticket items, the tech advances too fast for build quality to dictate obsolescence date anyway, so why worry about it?
Even in shooting this is partially true. A fine rifle made in 1950 is still a fine rifle, as good as a modern option, but then a top of the line scope from 1950 is, by modern standards, average at best.
Build quality only really matters in fairly stagnant product types that aren't beholden to fashion (so not soft furnishings for instance unless you like the retro look), like housing, simple mechanical devices with no electronics, basic tools, perhaps furniture. There just aren't a lot of these things extant in the modern world, and a very small market of people willing to pay massively over the odds to buy the top of the line variants of these things.
To your question though, I think these 'good quality' items do still exist, they're just very expensive and therefore quite niche. You can buy a London best gun that'll last several lifetimes, but most can't afford to, and even of those who can, most don't bother. They buy a cheap savage. The same with fine custom knives vs a cheap one, or a very fine toolkit vs a cheap one or a nice mechanical watch vs a cheap disposable quartz. There's also the annoying fact that most of these basic items are simple enough to be reliable and durable even if cheaply made, so there's even less advantage to buying 'quality' (beyond wanting to have nice things, obviously).
The only way these things become popular is to either persuade people to value them, or alternatively to actively stifle the cheap mass market competitors. Neither is likely and honestly, whilst I do like having 'the best', I'm also kinda glad that I can buy a cheap rifle or a decent toolkit or a TV for the equivalent of a couple hours wages if I like.
I'm not sure that was actually the case for much of history and given the choice of a cheap rifle vs no rifle in their budget at all, I'm sure most would happily buy the cheap one (for context, a simple breechloading shotgun in 1850 in the US was $60ish, versus an average monthly wage of about $30. Or about $6000 equivalent today).
