Besides, I don't care if I save $20 over ten years if I can save $9 today.

 

For a simple light bulb that lasts 6 months to a year, maybe but that's not the same as total reliability for X lifetime expectancy the good LED bulbs can have.

I've only had one fixture in one residence where incandescents didn't last very long, and even then I almost always got a couple years out of them. The first house I bought I never changed a single bulb the entire time I owned it -- the bulbs that were in it when I bought the place where the same bulbs that were in it when I sold the place six years later. Similar story for the house I bought after that, with the glaring exception of that one light fixture. When I bought it I got a pack of a dozen bulbs as a housewarming gift and I think three of them went into other fixtures to replace burned out bulbs. Another five were used to replace the bulbs in that one fixture. When I sold the house after fourteen years I still had four bulbs in that box. During that time I also bought several CFLs for use in the high use areas and had to replace them so many times that I finally just put the incandescents that I had pulled out back in, where they were all still working when I sold the house.

Pretty similar story at the next house, where I tried to switch as many of the lights over to LEDs as I could. Many, many failed LED bulbs while virtually no failed incandescents -- but I realized much later the absolute crappy quality of the economy-band bulbs that I was buying. The ceiling fan in the main area was well out of reach, so I was dreading having to replace the bulbs in it when they failed, which I was expecting to happen any time because when I asked the seller how hard they were to change, he told use that he didn't know because they were the original bulbs from when the house was built twelve years earlier. They were still the bulbs when we sold it fourteen years after that. I found that quite surprising because the electrical grid in that area was quite vulnerable and we had dozens of outages a year (most lasting just a few minutes, but a few lasting a couple days) and lots of transient events as tree branches touched lines somewhere during windstorms. I suspect that accounted for some fraction of the LED failures, but if so that just underscores the relative reliability of the two.

When we moved into this house a about four years ago I switched most of the bulbs over to LED and tried to buy higher quality bulbs. They've lasted a lot better, but I've still had to replace more LED bulbs over that time than I've replaced incandescents in all of the homes I've ever owned, if I discount that one troublesome light fixture (and I can only begin to imagine the carnage that fixture would take on LED bulbs).

 

You can buy good quality LED bulbs at the "dollar store" for a buck and a quarter. I use several of their flood lights bulbs over my bench.

They use the latest technology, which Clive explains are easy to hack to reduce power consumption and heating.

When comparing costs of LED bulbs vs incandescent, be sure to include the 80% reduction in electricity use of LED bulbs.

 

I've only had one fixture in one residence where incandescents didn't last very long, and even then I almost always got a couple years out of them. The first house I bought I never changed a single bulb the entire time I owned it -- the bulbs that were in it when I bought the place where the same bulbs that were in it when I sold the place six years later. Similar story for the house I bought after that, with the glaring exception of that one light fixture. When I bought it I got a pack of a dozen bulbs as a housewarming gift and I think three of them went into other fixtures to replace burned out bulbs. Another five were used to replace the bulbs in that one fixture. When I sold the house after fourteen years I still had four bulbs in that box. During that time I also bought several CFLs for use in the high use areas and had to replace them so many times that I finally just put the incandescents that I had pulled out back in, where they were all still working when I sold the house.

Pretty similar story at the next house, where I tried to switch as many of the lights over to LEDs as I could. Many, many failed LED bulbs while virtually no failed incandescents -- but I realized much later the absolute crappy quality of the economy-band bulbs that I was buying. The ceiling fan in the main area was well out of reach, so I was dreading having to replace the bulbs in it when they failed, which I was expecting to happen any time because when I asked the seller how hard they were to change, he told use that he didn't know because they were the original bulbs from when the house was built twelve years earlier. They were still the bulbs when we sold it fourteen years after that. I found that quite surprising because the electrical grid in that area was quite vulnerable and we had dozens of outages a year (most lasting just a few minutes, but a few lasting a couple days) and lots of transient events as tree branches touched lines somewhere during windstorms. I suspect that accounted for some fraction of the LED failures, but if so that just underscores the relative reliability of the two.

When we moved into this house a about four years ago I switched most of the bulbs over to LED and tried to buy higher quality bulbs. They've lasted a lot better, but I've still had to replace more LED bulbs over that time than I've replaced incandescents in all of the homes I've ever owned, if I discount that one troublesome light fixture (and I can only begin to imagine the carnage that fixture would take on LED bulbs).

I know the problems with cheap LED bulbs, that's why I stock incandescents and still use them in the house.
Our friends up north still sell them.
https://canadalite.com/LIGHT-BULBS-|-ANTIQUE-APPLIANCE-CEILING-FAN-FLOOD-LIGHTS-HEAT-LAMPS


We both know it's possible to make very reliable LED bulbs (we use Commercial Grade bulbs for production equipment replacements and upgrades) that can easily last a decade but the market is dominated by lower and lower quality junk. The root problem is not LED bulbs, the problem is the general one of, Where have good-quality products gone? I know, they went to China and never came back.

 

During latest decades of globalization they raised quantity but quality was droped out,
govts now kill souls to just fill bellies.

 

I know the problems with cheap LED bulbs, that's why I stock incandescents and still use them in the house.
Our friends up north still sell them.
https://canadalite.com/LIGHT-BULBS-|-ANTIQUE-APPLIANCE-CEILING-FAN-FLOOD-LIGHTS-HEAT-LAMPS


We both know it's possible to make very reliable LED bulbs (we use Commercial Grade bulbs for production equipment replacements and upgrades) that can easily last a decade but the market is dominated by lower and lower quality junk. The root problem is not LED bulbs, the problem is the general one of, Where have good-quality products gone? I know, they went to China and never came back.

I am either very lucky or my avoidance of cheap no-name products is what is different. Fir instance, I have had all of 3 cell phones in the last 20 years and none has failed in any way. They were replaced because I wanted the newer features. I have friends who have to replace a broken phone every few months. There is quality out there if you bother to look.

 

I am either very lucky or my avoidance of cheap no-name products is what is different. Fir instance, I have had all of 3 cell phones in the last 20 years and none has failed in any way. They were replaced because I wanted the newer features. I have friends who have to replace a broken phone every few months. There is quality out there if you bother to look.

One easy trick, don't buy the rock bottom cheapest of anything. That rules works from brothels to atomic bombs.

 

One easy trick, don't buy the rock bottom cheapest of anything. That rules works from brothels to atomic bombs.

Previously, I posted:

I have a rule of thumb when buying many things: find the lowest price, then start looking at 150% of that. Have not really noticed a decline in quality, in fact, often I see the opposite.

 

One easy trick, don't buy the rock bottom cheapest of anything.

And, yet, the most expensive iPhone or Android is still made of glass.

 

And, yet, the most expensive iPhone or Android is still made of glass.

and diamonds are made of Carbon.

 

and diamonds are made of Carbon.

That's an idea: cell phones of diamond!

The reason this is an issue for me is that the single most common point of failure for a mobile device (a broken glass screen) is the one part of the phone not covered by either the manufacturer's warranty or a third-party paid warranty (in my direct experience).

Also, water ingress on "water proof" phones (and watches) is also not covered.

 

That's an idea: cell phones of diamond!

The reason this is an issue for me is that the single most common point of failure for a mobile device (a broken glass screen) is the one part of the phone not covered by either the manufacturer's warranty or a third-party paid warranty (in my direct experience).

Also, water ingress on "water proof" phones (and watches) is also not covered.

I wouldn't pay for every drunk dropped cell phone screen either.

 

That video of me is soooo embarrassing. I've asked Youtube to delete it, but they refuse.

 

Something to consider: maybe it’s not a matter of durable, well made products going away but disposable, engineered for manufacturing products appearing.

Think about the very dramatic median household income and the equally dramatic reduction in purchasing power of money over time. Also, add in the newly available materials and methods for manufacturing “durable” goods that produce more or less functional items that work well enough when purchased to consider as an option while not being viable long term.

We’ve all repaired “old” manufactured items—think about the breakdown of the parts and finishes on older items vs. relatively newer ones. Newer plastics that were quite strong initially become brittle in a way that older materials couldn’t match because previously materials initially strong enough were by nature also durable long term.

But to my point, researching a bit, it seems that since the late 1960s a decent self-propelled walk behind mower cost—pretty consistently—about $150, jumping to $300 over time and sticking.. Of course that means the price of such a mower in 1960 was much, much higher than in 1990 when accounting for the impact relative to annual household income.

Because of how it is reported, it is hard to have a single number for this comparison (it‘s a rabbit hole) but we can say approximately $14,000 in 1960 to $40,000 in 1980–or about 2.8x. So, the same ~$200.00 lawnmower in 1960, compared to the 1980 purchase was $560, and the impact on household budget was far greater.

Now it’s not that there weren’t “cheap” lawnmowers in 1960, there were. But they were very cheap indeed. in 1960 dollars the cheap models were ~$30 in 1960 money, or an income adjusted ~$84. These models were extremely barebones! Today, you can’t get a barebones lawnmower that is a stripped down and “thinned out” version of a good one—you get a feature rich but poorly manufactured version of alternative materials.

So, here’s what I think, the good products are out there, but they look like “luxury” brands because of the availability of the low end items. Consider a $250 lawnmower today—it’s not even on the list of “good” lawnmowers because to reverse the math, a current, $250 option is like that $30 1960 mower or worse.

I recently replaced our mower. Because Home Depot was changing what they would be stocking in stores, I got a very steep discount on the Makita battery-electric mower I wanted. It is considered a “professional” machine, designed to be used in commercial service where heavy use would tear up a “consumer grade” mower in short order.

That mower costs ~$900 without the discount. So, ~$315 in our putative 1960 lawnmower dollars. In 1960 a Craftsmen walk-behind self propelled mower from the top tier was the same thing a commercial purchaser would buy. So, things seem pretty close to the same, overall.

So, it’s not so much you have to buy the “premium” items to get what you‘d have expected in earlier times, rather it is that you have to buy from the same tier of products ignoring a new variety that mimic the better options in terms of apparent features and performance but can’t match the durability because they are using methods and materials focused on keeping the price tags low and the profits high.

The high quality products haven‘t gone anywhere, they’ve just cost about the same in real terms while increasing in dollars. The impact on household budget is, on average, about the same as well.

People in the past expected to own fewer things and bought fewer. They spent more on each one. They scaled the impact on their budgets to their incomes and when they did buy the cheaper ones they traded features much more than durability. “Planned obsolescence“ was a scandal of the late 1960s that flared and died out when people decided that cheap, frequent purchases that included both the latest fashion and lots of “features” was an acceptable tradeoff.

Both manufacturers and consumers are now in a short-cycle churn mode for even some of the otherwise most expensive durable goods. For example, my car is a 2015 model of a luxury brand. It was very expensive new, and it is built very well. Most people driving cars like mine lease them for 3 years, then get a new one, effectively renting the car for a fixed monthly cost.

They never own it, they just pay for and use it. Recently, the shutdown of the 3G networks meant a great deal of my car’s functionality simple became—unfunctional. The car is in near perfect condition mechanically and cosmetically. It drives beautifully, and thanks to top notch manufacturing and materials there is no reason to expect this to change for a very long time (so long as I don’t abuse it).

But, without the connected features, and without the latest driver assistance technology, it is definitely and suddenly less than what I purchased. This would have no effect on the person who leases a car like mine since 3 years is practically no time at all. I expect, despite the reduction in functionality, to own my car for quite a bit longer. I will probably replace it only when something other than an ICE-powered vehicle is a good an option as this one was.

This churn of products means that unless you buy the “luxury” brands that must stand up to scrutiny as if they were intended to be durable, you are going to be in the “how much is the payment?” territory of consumer reasoning. Pay what “the good old [lawnmower | car | TV | whatever]” cost you and you will be getting something like the old day’s version, except a lot better in almost every way.

 

@Ya’akov , I think you have nailed it. Good analysis.

 

Ya’kov; excellent analysis, and I am almost in complete agreement with you.

The problem nowadays, IMHO, is the ubiquitous use of plastics. Plastic degrades quicker and once it does, it breaks easily and can’t be repaired.
As I explained in my first post, a flimsy plastic part was protecting the drive belt. Failure of this protection caused a drive belt failure. Previously the belt was protected by a steel cover.

 

Something to consider: maybe it’s not a matter of durable, well made products going away but disposable, engineered for manufacturing products appearing.

Think about the very dramatic median household income and the equally dramatic reduction in purchasing power of money over time. Also, add in the newly available materials and methods for manufacturing “durable” goods that produce more or less functional items that work well enough when purchased to consider as an option while not being viable long term.

We’ve all repaired “old” manufactured items—think about the breakdown of the parts and finishes on older items vs. relatively newer ones. Newer plastics that were quite strong initially become brittle in a way that older materials couldn’t match because previously materials initially strong enough were by nature also durable long term.

But to my point, researching a bit, it seems that since the late 1960s a decent self-propelled walk behind mower cost—pretty consistently—about $150, jumping to $300 over time and sticking.. Of course that means the price of such a mower in 1960 was much, much higher than in 1990 when accounting for the impact relative to annual household income.

Because of how it is reported, it is hard to have a single number for this comparison (it‘s a rabbit hole) but we can say approximately $14,000 in 1960 to $40,000 in 1980–or about 2.8x. So, the same ~$200.00 lawnmower in 1960, compared to the 1980 purchase was $560, and the impact on household budget was far greater.

Now it’s not that there weren’t “cheap” lawnmowers in 1960, there were. But they were very cheap indeed. in 1960 dollars the cheap models were ~$30 in 1960 money, or an income adjusted ~$84. These models were extremely barebones! Today, you can’t get a barebones lawnmower that is a stripped down and “thinned out” version of a good one—you get a feature rich but poorly manufactured version of alternative materials.

So, here’s what I think, the good products are out there, but they look like “luxury” brands because of the availability of the low end items. Consider a $250 lawnmower today—it’s not even on the list of “good” lawnmowers because to reverse the math, a current, $250 option is like that $30 1960 mower or worse.

I recently replaced our mower. Because Home Depot was changing what they would be stocking in stores, I got a very steep discount on the Makita battery-electric mower I wanted. It is considered a “professional” machine, designed to be used in commercial service where heavy use would tear up a “consumer grade” mower in short order.

That mower costs ~$900 without the discount. So, ~$315 in our putative 1960 lawnmower dollars. In 1960 a Craftsmen walk-behind self propelled mower from the top tier was the same thing a commercial purchaser would buy. So, things seem pretty close to the same, overall.

So, it’s not so much you have to buy the “premium” items to get what you‘d have expected in earlier times, rather it is that you have to buy from the same tier of products ignoring a new variety that mimic the better options in terms of apparent features and performance but can’t match the durability because they are using methods and materials focused on keeping the price tags low and the profits high.

The high quality products haven‘t gone anywhere, they’ve just cost about the same in real terms while increasing in dollars. The impact on household budget is, on average, about the same as well.

People in the past expected to own fewer things and bought fewer. They spent more on each one. They scaled the impact on their budgets to their incomes and when they did buy the cheaper ones they traded features much more than durability. “Planned obsolescence“ was a scandal of the late 1960s that flared and died out when people decided that cheap, frequent purchases that included both the latest fashion and lots of “features” was an acceptable tradeoff.

Both manufacturers and consumers are now in a short-cycle churn mode for even some of the otherwise most expensive durable goods. For example, my car is a 2015 model of a luxury brand. It was very expensive new, and it is built very well. Most people driving cars like mine lease them for 3 years, then get a new one, effectively renting the car for a fixed monthly cost.

They never own it, they just pay for and use it. Recently, the shutdown of the 3G networks meant a great deal of my car’s functionality simple became—unfunctional. The car is in near perfect condition mechanically and cosmetically. It drives beautifully, and thanks to top notch manufacturing and materials there is no reason to expect this to change for a very long time (so long as I don’t abuse it).

But, without the connected features, and without the latest driver assistance technology, it is definitely and suddenly less than what I purchased. This would have no effect on the person who leases a car like mine since 3 years is practically no time at all. I expect, despite the reduction in functionality, to own my car for quite a bit longer. I will probably replace it only when something other than an ICE-powered vehicle is a good an option as this one was.

This churn of products means that unless you buy the “luxury” brands that must stand up to scrutiny as if they were intended to be durable, you are going to be in the “how much is the payment?” territory of consumer reasoning. Pay what “the good old [lawnmower | car | TV | whatever]” cost you and you will be getting something like the old day’s version, except a lot better in almost every way.

You're right, I've never had a problem buying high quality products, when spending other people's money.

 

Where have good-quality products gone?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/09/science/china-rocket-stage-orbital-debris/index.html