"There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that man's lawful prey."To me the practice of selling substandard items is largely created by the consumer who always wants a cheaper item.
I wonder why the same thing didn't happen in Germany?Uk makers were put on a back foot with cheap Chinese imports years ago so they began making it thinner, shorter or anything that made it cheaper to make and sell at the same price to make enough profit to survive. But when the largest cost is the wages bill and you are competing with makers in Hungary, Mexico, India, China, the writing was on the wall so manufacturing basically slowed and stopped here.
As a retail consumer if you buy something on a credit card (between the values of £100 and £30k section 75 of the consumer credit act applies. This includes consequential loss which would include payment for your time.Some great input here from you all.
My main point is that on top of relevant laws we as a consumer are generally left out of pocket in one way or another.
For example, order 13 expensive doors and find that neither the wholesalers or suppliers had found manufacturing faults (inside the wrapper) with 5 of them.
"No problems we will replace them"
But who's paying for my time to unload and check them again.
Now, tell them that If the customer finds the faults they have to refund AND replace, the suppliers would dare not operate like this.
It's not just a case of you want cheap you get cheap as that cheap thing should still work, fit and be all there.
As mentioned above everyone thinks it's wonderful service when they get a problem resolved with after sales departments but it is often at the inconvenience of the consumer who cannot claim anything for it.
You could add in something for the environmental capital cost of the different machines. I would assume that generally the amount of steel, plastics etc would be similar no matter what the cost of the machine, maybe a little bit more for a bigger capacity machine. You could take that the environmental capital cost of an average washing machine is £200, the rest of the cost is machining and intellectual property. The £500 machine with 10% of £200 added, £20; and the £300 machine gets £40 added.A calculation which does not include the environmental costs of more frequent replacements.
Cheap but short-lived machines may cost you less in the long run, but what about the rest of us?
Just don't mention that word to Japanese engineers because it is like swearing, the very thought of something failing is taken as an insult to their abilities as I found out once when asking them about their MTBF figures for batches of 10,000 units.In manufacture there is a design/engineering term - bathtub curve. It relates to the failure rate of everything that is made. The shape of the curve resembles a bath, steep at start indicating that a lot of failures occur in the items' early period. Then follows a period of relatively few failures for the main part of its designed life and then, as the item's reach their end, the failure rates increase.
Absolutely nothing wrong with horse meat.
The common denominator is money. It is a means of exchange, a store of wealth (future buying capacity), a way of allocating resource.
By comparison regard for the environment is trivial. At present there are some limited efforts to make folk aware of environmental impacts (eg: EPC for property), a small amount of taxation (eg: fuel duty) etc. Mostly fork can ignore it if they want with very limited consequences.
Attempts to quantify environmental impacts in ££ is fundamentally flawed. Like measuring the height of a tree with a temperature gauge.
Alan Sugar built his business in the early days by this principle - he never checked anything, said that it was far far cheaper to just send stuff out and replace duds without question than pay for the extra labour to 100% check items before despatch.A friend of ours had a very small assembly business and they were doing an order for extension leads, the lead came with one of those 4 port multi sockets pre wired, anyway our chums being conscientious types checked each one as they fitted plugs and started to discover ones where wires in the socket were not fitted, but they still had the little “Tested” sticker on them, so they contacted the company who litterally laughed and said “oh we don't test any of them, we just stick the sticker on, the customer tests them for us, and if they tell us one is faulty we apologise and without question send out another, the customer being treated so well with great customer service is always extremely happy” Our chum, and ex RAF pilot, was astounded by this attitude,,I wonder how common this type of thing is?
But a carnivore eats according to what tastes good and that depends on your dinner's diet.If you eat meat then what is wrong with eating horse, dog or donkey as they are all meat, as a vegetarian we eat alll vegetables and don't differentiate between a carrot and a sweet potatoe so really carnivores should eat anything that can be classed as meat.
As long as the leg quotient is >0 and <6,
Machining has an environmental cost.You could add in something for the environmental capital cost of the different machines. I would assume that generally the amount of steel, plastics etc would be similar no matter what the cost of the machine, maybe a little bit more for a bigger capacity machine. You could take that the environmental capital cost of an average washing machine is £200, the rest of the cost is machining and intellectual property. The £500 machine with 10% of £200 added, £20; and the £300 machine gets £40 added.
I see nothing about the headline cost to you, or the environmental costs, of buying 2 or 3 £300 machines plus 2 or 3 times 5-years of breakdowns vs one at £500 plus 10 or 15 years of breakdowns.£500 washing machine that breaks down 10% of the time within 5 years. £500 plus £50 plus £10 (assume £100 per day "pay") gives £560 "cost". This now becomes £580.
£300 washing machine that breaks down 20% of the time within 5 years. £300 pus £60 plus £20 gives £380 "cost". This now becomes £420 taking into account the environmental capital cost.
It's not easy.How would you add the environmental capital cost.
Machining has an environmental cost.
As does transporting new and oldmachines and disposing of the latter.
And I really don't understand your calculations.
I see nothing about the headline cost to you, or the environmental costs, of buying 2 or 3 £300 machines plus 2 or 3 times 5-years of breakdowns vs one at £500 plus 10 or 15 years of breakdowns.
It's not easy.
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: