We Voted for Disposability

A century ago consumption didn’t exist in the way it does today. People worked long hours (they also “walked uphill on the way to school and uphill on the way back”) and had less time to go shopping. In fact, going shopping often meant heading to Main Street and picking up the necessities from the few local stores that offered them. Products were generally more expensive, and most people bought only what they needed. Shopping for the sake of shopping didn’t really exist, and consumers prized durability. When shoppers bought an object (except consumables like food), they expected it to last; when it did eventually break, rather than throw it away they would fix it. If overalls tore, their owner would patch the tear. They would cobble their shoes when the soles wore out and fix kitchen tables when they broke.

Then along came Henry Ford and the perfection of mass production, ushering in an era of mass consumption. Today when we buy a table, we expect it to break within a handful of years. If our pants tear or our shoe soles wear out, we choose to throw them out and buy new ones. Even before a hole appears or a sole needs replacing, our ever-changing fashion aesthetics often render those jeans or shoes as waste with the next season. Just imagine the reduction of your clothing budget if the idea of fashion evolved at a slower pace or not at all.

To serve their shareholders, manufacturers seem to make sure that objects become physically outdated, or outdated in the eyes of consumers, as soon as possible; if something breaks easily or if we think the next version of an object is better and cooler than the one before, we’re more apt to discard the old in favor of the new. Planned obsolescence is simply good for business.