Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Which is very ironic when you consider how it's widely considered an enlightened, cool, worldly hipster choice to make for furnishings.
|
It's a big oversimplification to say that less durable stuff is always worse. What really matters is the cost amortized over the lifetime of the item. Environmental impact is hard to figure out and might be huge or very low for everyday items. Amount of material sent to a landfill or to be recycled isn't necessarily that important; it all depends on what you are throwing out.
In a restaurant setting for example it's not always clear that a ceramic plate is going to be more cost effective or better for the environment than a paper plate. The ceramic plates can be used many times but they cost a lot more and are regularly broken or lost. Somebody was telling me a while ago that for fountain pop served in a glass, the biggest expense is the glass. It worked out to something like 12 cents per use for them.
I really doubt that the typical Ashley furniture item is a family heirloom. I've got some IKEA things that are about 12 years old at this point and cost probably 1/4 or less what they would have somewhere else. It didn't make any sense at all for me to buy the more expensive version 12 years ago, and I am not sure it does now. I have some nicer furniture too but I'm pretty selective about where and when I buy that stuff; I don't consider mid-range big box stores to be worth it most of the time. Usually they use similar construction methods to IKEA, like screws instead of joinery.