"expectation"

whatmichaelsays

The cost of consumer electronics and appliances has plummeted in real terms so comparing a new fridge to your 60 year old fridge isn't a great comparision.

As consumers, we get what we want and, at the moment, what we seem to want is stuff that is cheap, cheaper and cheapest. You can't have that without expecting a compromise on quality.

If you want quality and reliability, there are plenty of manufacturers out there who can help, it's just that you probably won't find them in your local branch of Currys.

Bantex_2

I would suspect that a fridge cost 2 or 3 months average wages 60 years ago.

A fridge costing £5000 would tend to be pretty high end these days.

Exile_geordie

Id say a fridge lasting 60 years is the exception rather than the norm.

Bet cheese left in there wouldnt have lasted for that long

Money-Saving-King

hollydays wrote: »

DONT BUY NEW.

Every time I buy a TV it's always new. Just bought a phone today online, it's new as well. Two items where I would not to buy second hand.

Money-Saving-King

chesters11 wrote: »

so why not force the manufacturer to have a 6 year warranty on all fridges

You could do but then they'd charge a lot more. Then what about the people then get priced out of the new fridge market? Markets can become over regulated and end up doing more harm than good.

shaun_from_Africa

hollydays wrote: »

DONT BUY NEW.

There's a good rreason for you stating that:

hollydays wrote: »

I am a buyer and seller of high quality things..used

If you only sold new goods, I doubt very much if you would advise everyone never to buy new items.

chesters11 wrote: »

so why not force the manufacturer to have a 6 year warranty on all fridges ,our telly was 30 when we retired it to a modern flatscreen that lasted 18 months so why not a 6 year warrenty on tv's ,our freezer is over 20 so why not a 6 year warranty on freezers.

Manufacturers are no obligation to give any sort of warranty at all so who could possibly force them to give one that was valid for 6 years?

whatmichaelsays

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

You could do but then they'd charge a lot more. Then what about the people then get priced out of the new fridge market? Markets can become over regulated and end up doing more harm than good.

The system we have now is fine. The goods are covered by law for a period deemed reasonable.

Those who wish to have additional coverage can either find a retailer that offers it for free (such as John Lewis) or they can pay for it, without making the rest of us share the cost burden.

rustyboy21

As a number of posters have already said, the fridge from 1957 would have cost , in terms of average salary a hell of a lot more than one would now. Maybe 3-4 months salary, compared to , maybe 2 weeks salary now.


Consumer goods now are not made to last, consumer aspirations is now based on look rather than functionality and durability. Items are now more of a fashion statement.


Buying second hand, can raise issues. If you buy a modern flat screen TV second hand, how do you now that it will last? How do you know that it wont pack up 2 weeks after purchase and you are either stung with a large repair bill or faced with buying another one. Same for almost every consumer goods.


There was a BBC program I watched a few months ago, which covered this issue. It seemed that items now have some sort of in built 'Kill Switch' which will kill off the appliance after a certain time. Printers being an example. They said it was found that some printers had an internal counter, which after it had printed off, say, 15,000 pages it packed up and you could not get it fixed. Who is to say this doesn't happen with other items?


We are all now living in a world which does not get things repaired, we just dump them and move on. It is a shame, but it does keep industry surviving.