[HN Gopher] Meditations on an inexpensive laundry basket
___________________________________________________________________
Meditations on an inexpensive laundry basket
Author : zdw
Score : 90 points
Date : 2022-12-08 14:45 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (onefoottsunami.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (onefoottsunami.com)
| amelius wrote:
| No piece of plastic forged in one pressing beats the Monobloc in
| reputation.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monobloc_(chair)
| pvillano wrote:
| > The chairs cost approximately $3.50 to produce
| seltzered_ wrote:
| Anyone else remember the Walmart checkout area lined up with
| boxes of 'Yaffa Blocks' around the late 90s?
| pydry wrote:
| >Given all these bankruptcies, I'm beginning to think that even
| back in 2001, this product was underpriced. $3.99 was simply too
| low to charge for a product which would go on to serve me well
| and faithfully for 20+ years and counting. In life, you have to
| know your value, and charge accordingly.
|
| He's mixing up use value and exchange value.
| davio wrote:
| Don't forget those ubiquitous 20% coupons (they also accepted
| Bed Bath and Beyond's coupons)
| bombcar wrote:
| Exactly. Many things cost substantially less than their "value"
| because they're way too easy for someone else to make.
|
| Vacuum molded plastics are often high on that list.
| gidorah wrote:
| I have a laundry basket that I've had since new in around 2005.
| Though I'm not sure.
|
| There is fluff in the handles that it probably older than my
| children. We joke that the basket will always be a part of our
| lives.
| topspin wrote:
| I have a couple Rubbermaid baskets from the early 90's. I've
| wondered if they're still as well made now.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| > In life, you have to know your value, and charge accordingly.
|
| Dollar stores existed that sold $1 laundry baskets. Is this
| supposed to be satire?
| thewebcount wrote:
| That doesn't mean that the laundry baskets at the dollar store
| didn't cost more than $1 to make. The inventory of dollar
| stores sometimes comes from bartering rather than buying
| inventory. My brother worked in this industry for a few years
| and it was really bizarre. You'd have one company with several
| thousand cell phones that didn't meet FCC standards, so they
| couldn't sell them in the US, and they didn't have the
| infrastructure to sell them overseas themselves. You'd have
| another company that had several thousand packs of last year's
| baseball cards, but that also has some overseas brands that
| sell electronics. They'd come up with some sort of trade. The
| baseball cards would end up in a dollar store, and the cell
| phones would end up in Africa. Problem solved, no money changed
| hands.
| jstanley wrote:
| If you want to prevent the crack from spreading, you can drill a
| larger hole at the end of the crack, like this:
| http://www.flight-mechanic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/7-...
|
| Also, if you want to hold the crack together, you can drill holes
| either side and "stitch" it together with cable ties, like this:
| https://i2.wp.com/handycrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/...
|
| May your inexpensive laundry basket continue to serve you for a
| long time!
| bufordtwain wrote:
| Useful suggestions. I think that the crack allows the weight to
| go onto the corner of the basket instead of being concentrated
| on the little bump/foot. So it might be a self-limiting problem
| where no action is needed (for a long time anyway). It would be
| interesting if the OP would take no action and then report back
| in 10 years to see what happened.
| pvillano wrote:
| "reduce, _repair_ , reuse, recycle"
|
| Plastics are some of the most long-lasting materials. It's kind
| of insane that we treat them as disposable.
| hoseja wrote:
| Couldn't he weld the, presumable, thermoplastic too?
| jaclaz wrote:
| Usually it won't last much unless you weld it with some added
| material (that needs to be the same thermoplastic or it
| likely won't stick).
|
| What I found exceptional for this kind of small plastic
| repair is one of those welding guns that can hot-staple,
| originally a professional tool to repair plastic elements
| like bumpers in car body shops, they are now available cheap
| (from China, quality may vary), still makes no sense for just
| one repair, but it is an useful tool to have if you happen to
| do repairs often.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| There are tools specifically made to staple plastics
| together. The end user has to decide whether spending $20
| on a tool to repair a $4 bin that costs $12 to replace is
| worth it or not.
| moloch-hai wrote:
| Adding material seems entirely permissible. A hot glue gun
| does nothing but, with usually admirable result.
| convolvatron wrote:
| sometimes you can heat up some wire and push a couple
| pieces through the break.
|
| another approach I've had success with is using a little
| aluminum sheet over the break and pop rivets on both sides
| mhb wrote:
| Maybe the old superglue and baking soda trick?
| danielodievich wrote:
| We bought a really large storage box with wheels to use as a
| laundry basket, in dark green with red covers from The Container
| Store a while ago, when we moved to a new house and our kids were
| just toddlers. They were very curious about what that big thing
| was and since it was right before holidays, we called the box
| "Merry Christmas"! They rode around in it quite a bit, fun to be
| on top of clothes and be pushed by your sibling.
|
| It's been 13 years and it is still going strong, even after heavy
| riding sessions of yesteryears.
|
| And to put something in laundry in our house is pronounced as "go
| put your dirty clothes into merry christmas"
| smcl wrote:
| > it's a vessel for transporting toasty warm clothes
| approximately 50 feet
|
| This is odd - surely a laundry basket is a vessel for heavy, damp
| and lukewarm clothes
| elliottkember wrote:
| Not in my house. Dirty clothes go into a hamper, the bag comes
| out of the hamper to the laundry, and then the basket is for
| carrying them back to the bedroom to fold.
| ollybee wrote:
| I have a laundry basket I took form my parents, I think it's from
| at least the 70's, it seems to be made of a thicker plastic,
| that's a little rubbery and so does not crack. I've newer washing
| baskets the plastic seems more brittle and has cracked over time.
| I wondered if the 70's basket had some additive that is no longer
| allowed, or that the economics if making a quality product dont
| make sense, I've certainly no been able to find and that seem
| robust like my 70's one in the UK.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| Did the floor of general product quality used to be higher, or
| was there always an abundance of cheap crap that broke fast and
| we just see the survivors?
| tristor wrote:
| Both. One thing most people discount is how much better
| materials science has gotten since the 60s/70s. We now
| understand the limitations and constraints of the materials
| we are working with much better and can design in a cost-
| optimized fashion for a targeted life span. Computers aid
| this a lot with techniques like Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
| and similar.
|
| Things in the past were greatly overbuilt for their purpose
| because we didn't fully understand the material properties.
| We now have a lot of lighter, thinner, more functional
| products and in a cost-optimized way.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| I often feel like we might have been better off as a
| society with the overbuilt products that could take more
| abuse and were more reusable and adaptable. Like a heavy
| phone you could dramatically hang up or beat a robber with,
| full of recyclable metal and reusable electronics.
| tristor wrote:
| I definitely feel this way about hand tools. There's
| still a few good options left for new stuff, but most of
| it is junk compared to tools from the 60s. Because hand
| tools are pretty much all metals, it's simple to compare
| weight. I have a new and vintage Snap-On 3/8" drive
| ratchet that are of identical model numbers, new one is
| 30% lighter.
|
| Never broken either ratchet, but I have broken ratcheting
| wrenches and many sockets. Vintage impact sockets are
| much less likely to crack but sometimes won't fit in the
| cut-outs for lug nuts on modern wheels, due to the
| expectation of thinner walled sockets.
|
| I definitely miss slamming a phone when you hang up after
| a bad call, not quite the same tapping end on a
| touchscreen.
| woodruffw wrote:
| As a counterpoint: Sterilite has been going strong for decades
| (while still manufacturing in the US), and I think I paid $3.99
| for my laundry basket in 2021. It looks like it can be had online
| (from Target) for about $5.
|
| Plastic manufacturing is _shockingly_ cheap, especially when the
| design never changes. Maybe it shouldn't be that cheap (since
| it's probably being externalized somewhere), but lots of
| companies are surviving (and thriving) at these price points.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| > Maybe it shouldn't be that cheap (since it's probably being
| externalized somewhere)
|
| I mean, there's four main pieces to this:
|
| - Injection moulding machine
|
| - Mould itself
|
| - Raw materials
|
| - Disposal
|
| The moulding machine is quite expensive until you amortize
| across the number of produced pieces. Most of the time these
| aren't custom-built and can be used to make multiple patterns.
|
| The mould is also quite expensive and is made for one specific
| part. To your point, this is why things get cheap when the
| design doesn't change. They will eventually wear out, but from
| a high quality mould you should be able to get roughly a
| bazillion of these consumer plastic parts.
|
| The materials are ridiculously cheap. Polyethylene, as an
| example, is $1200/metric ton:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/1171074/price-high-
| densi.... I don't know exactly what a laundry basket weighs,
| but I'd guess somewhere in the 500-1000g range, so somewhere
| between $0.60-$1.20 worth of plastic.
|
| The recycling at the end is the part that isn't really baked
| into the price. A quick search didn't reveal much as far as the
| costs for recycling/kg, but did suggest that recycled PET seems
| to sell for more like $0.20-0.30/kg. This, to me, suggests that
| either it needs a fair bit more processing to make it into
| "useful PET" or that whatever recycling process they use
| requires minimal energy & processing compared to the initial
| chemical inputs that made the plastic in the first place.
| neilv wrote:
| The sometimes high cost of tooling and low cost of materials
| is a boon for counterfeits...
|
| When I worked on an anti-counterfeiting and supply chain
| integrity startup, one of the kinds of counterfeits I heard
| was of factories that make the legitimate product secretly
| also make the counterfeits. (Sometimes called "third-shift
| counterfeits".) They'd not only reuse the design and
| processes, but also reuse the same tooling.
|
| Corner-cutting the design/materials/QA is optional.
|
| There's huge money in counterfeiting (hey, the brand hand
| counterfeiters their IP and brand-building and even tooling;
| and counterfeiters just pay materials, labor, and
| distribution), and some other supply chain shenanigans.
|
| My impression was that besides hurting many businesses large
| and small (e.g., lost sales, price pressure, brand damage,
| and support/returns costs), and consumers (e.g., substandard
| product), it might also be concern for the relative economic
| power of countries (e.g., interests in one country steal
| profits from a major company, then that company sometimes
| also gets bought out by interests in that same country).
| (Though, bought-out companies still sometimes face supply
| chain fraud problems, including originating in other
| countries, so it's just not one single coherent national
| entity that's the problem.)
|
| Had Covid not hit _right_ after my startup 's successful
| factory launch, and then the subsequent VC skittishness when
| we really needed a round (to grow our big-ticket enterprise
| sales/partnership and high-skilled engineering), we might've
| made bigger dents in the problem.
| akiselev wrote:
| Third shift counterfeiting has been an endemic problem
| since the invention of the Gutenberg press. I collect old
| and rare books going back to the 1500s and printers have
| been doing it for half a millennia. Once the type is set up
| for a print run, there's nothing preventing the printer
| from running a secret shift to print a bunch more copies
| just for themselves. They'll usually use cheaper paper or
| binding so they're just different enough from real first
| editions to be worthless but you won't know it until it
| gets to appraisal unless you physically inspect the book
| yourself and know exactly what to look for.
| moloch-hai wrote:
| They are also a sort of first edition, and equally old.
| It is odd that they are worthless. There probably is an
| opportunity awaiting the person who formalizes third-
| shift first editions.
| akiselev wrote:
| I _think_ it mostly has to do with provenance. The third
| shift prints usually don't make it into contemporary
| bibliographies [1] and since the printer is
| untrustworthy, you can't be sure if it's a real third
| shift first edition or the tenth impression of some
| typesetting that the printer forgot to recycle. If we
| were talking about the Gutenberg Bible or say, Origin of
| Species, it might be worth doing original research and
| chemical analyses because even a third shift copy could
| be worth more than its weight in gold, but for >>99% of
| books it'd be a losing proposition since few books are
| worth tens of thousands of dollars.
|
| That said, if the paper and binding quality are the same
| between shifts and there's no identifying mark like
| unique numbering on each copy, there's no telling how
| many first editions in circulation are really third shift
| printings. So few of the books survive the centuries that
| I've never heard of more first editions showing up than
| the publisher admits to printing to bibliographers.
|
| Edit: They're not really "worthless" but old and rare
| books might see one genuine first edition sold every few
| years to some rich person with a hobby. Many if not most
| of these books are bought and sold by knowledgeable
| collectors so if a client is going to drop thousands on a
| book, they're going to buy the copy that is most likely
| to be genuine, making any also rans effectively worthless
| because there's not enough of a demand to force buyers to
| settle for riskier copies.
|
| [1] because they're unauthorized and the publisher
| doesn't talk about them to the bibliographers
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| To be fair, it's already odd that first editions are
| worth something. Collectors are just weird persons who
| will pay extraordinary sum for things of marginal
| interest. From there, it's not surprising that the way
| value is ascribed itself doesn't make much sense.
| pvillano wrote:
| If the laundry basket lasts forever there is no externalized
| cost of disposal. Like you said, plastic is incredibly cheap,
| but if it wasn't, we'd use it only for things that are
| designed to last forever. Plastic is a miracle material. It's
| a shame we treat it as disposable
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Plastic recycling is basically more expensive than creating
| new plastic, still. Very little plastic actually gets
| recycled. (Most of what you put in your household bin does
| not).
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/single-
| use...
| seventytwo wrote:
| Because new plastic creation doesn't include the cost of
| disposal, as the poster above mentioned.
|
| In theory, the cost of manufacture a new piece of plastic
| should pay for the recycling of that same piece of plastic.
| philwelch wrote:
| There is an entire waste disposal industry that can
| economically bury your broken plastic stuff in landfills,
| and which most people already pay for. This is a
| perfectly fine solution; we're at no realistic risk of
| running out of landfill space. If you live in a
| particularly corrupt country where your waste disposal
| industry is run by gangsters who dump your garbage off
| the coast of Somalia, I would suggest solving the
| gangster problem.
| akiselev wrote:
| It's not just the cost of disposal. Recycling aluminum or
| steel works because the alloys can be separated into
| their constituent parts and recombined into an alloy of
| the same or higher quality. That recycling them is
| cheaper than extracting it from ore is just a nice bonus
| that obviates the need for political incentives.
|
| Recycling plastics breaks down the polymers into smaller
| ones which degrades the quality in almost every respect.
| The cheapest way, for example, is literally just shred
| the plastic into lower quality injection moulding
| pellets.
| blamazon wrote:
| On negative externalities - if we don't change our course,
| practically every facet of our daily lives will continue to be
| dependent on petrochemical solids for long after we switch
| completely to electric vehicles and renewable energy.
|
| Plastic in my eyes is basically petro byproducts 'blitzscaled'
| to all layers of the economy, all the way down to the literal
| bloodstreams of all living organisms.
| into_infinity wrote:
| This laundry basket is an example of externalities being
| quite reasonable, though. It lasted 20+ years and that's not
| an outlier for items like this. I'd wager that making it out
| of anything else would have a worse environmental impact.
| Metal is far more energy-intensive. Fabric is far less
| durable.
|
| Throwaway plastics are far more of a problem, although the
| scale of the problem is often overstated for ideological
| reasons. For example, we're not at risk of running out of
| landfill space; and while plastics in the ocean are worth
| fixing, but there's little evidence that they're destroying
| ecosystems or harming health.
|
| Plastics are essentially a distraction. The vast majority of
| emissions that actually harm the environment come from other
| industries, but these problems are less tractable, so we get
| preoccupied washing yogurt cups and banning plastic straws
| instead.
| blamazon wrote:
| Fair point on the posted laundry basket being a win. But it
| is undeniable that it's so inexpensive because of all the
| plastic that was disposed. We also didn't see all the
| identical laundry baskets that went straight into landfill.
| I do understand real life landfills aren't like Wall-E, but
| in that film they certainly didn't run out of landfill
| space and it wasn't a utopia.
|
| On the second point, I don't find it too convincing that I
| don't have to worry about plastics in my blood, my
| children's blood, their children's blood, because we don't
| understand it very well yet. And on the ocean plastic,
| that's just the tip of the iceberg that we can see and talk
| about easily. The real thing that's killing ecosystems en
| masse is not at the output end of the system, but on the
| input end. Global reliance on petrochemicals, industrial
| pesticides derived thereby, etc. I'm a scuba diver and I've
| watched reefs die with my own eyes.
|
| I just can't shake the feeling we are on course to strip
| the planet of billions of years of biodiversity and in 1000
| years whoever is left will regard the decisions of our time
| w.r.t. resource extraction as catastrophically stupid. But
| I do acknowledge how this is idealogical and emotionally
| based as you point out, and I can agree to disagree. My
| friends tell me: we won't be alive in 1000 years, so who
| cares? That doesn't sit well with me, but I get it.
|
| Edit: noticed your edit and agree a lot with that point!
| Swizec wrote:
| > to strip the planet of billions of years of
| biodiversity and in 1000 years whoever is left will
| regard the decisions of our time w.r.t. resource
| extraction as catastrophically stupid
|
| About 300 years ago Europe was mostly stripped bare of
| forests. It helped us get to the point where we can say
| "Wow that was stupid".
|
| Now we use forests less (thanks to coal and later oil)
| and Europe is regrowing most of them. Yes ecosystems were
| impacted and biodiversity changed ... now it's slowly
| coming back. On the scale of millions of years this event
| is largely invisible.
|
| > As a result, during the period 1750-1850 forests in
| Central Europe had been decimated, causing a serious lack
| of timber. Some contemporary reports even spoke partly of
| desert-like landscapes at that time. During the late 19th
| and 20th centuries a huge amount of artificial
| reforestation was implemented.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_forest_in_
| Cen...
|
| > The area of forest in the EU increased by almost 10 %
| in 1990-2020; with the largest relative increase in
| Ireland (by 69 %) and largest absolute increase in Spain
| (by 4.7 million ha). Estimated 63 % of the net annual
| increment of timber in EU forests was logged in 2019
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
| explained/index.php...
| bacon_waffle wrote:
| > but there's little evidence that they're destroying
| ecosystems
|
| Plastic waste in the ocean is a major issue for seabirds
| [1]
|
| > or harming health
|
| "The combined data, although fragmentary, indicate that
| exposure to micro- and nanoplastics can induce oxidative
| stress, potentially resulting in cellular damage and an
| increased vulnerability to develop neuronal disorders." [2]
|
| I do agree that single-use plastics are a much bigger issue
| than less-durable plastic stuff like that laundry basket,
| and that greenhouse gas emissions are a bigger issue than
| waste disposal. That does not mean that plastic waste is
| not a big problem.
|
| [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5714369
| /Film...
|
| [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32513186/
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| I've had the fortune of working in industries that most
| people don't see the back end of...
|
| Like it or not; we will use every drop of oil there is, one
| way or another. I wouldn't bet against oil companies even if
| all cars were electric by means of a genie.
| Gare wrote:
| It seems only 4% of the World oil/gas production is used
| for plastics.
|
| https://www.bpf.co.uk/press/Oil_Consumption.aspx
| blamazon wrote:
| Good lord, all the plastic in the world being _four
| percent_ of oil and gas production is terrifying.
| Implying the rest basically ends up combusted into the
| atmosphere? The fact that increasing the percentage of
| oil and gas used for plastic looks like a good option by
| comparison turns my stomach.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| The wonder composites that make electric cars possible
| are all oil. Carbon fiber is hilariously not-green to
| produce. Make a tube out of oil and burn it over and
| over. Now make a car out of it with zero chance to
| recycle and talk about how green it is.
|
| Two things to your post though. Yes, making things out of
| oil is probably better than burning it. But don't mistake
| how much oil is used in the side-processes.
|
| We will burn the oil one way or another. Until there is a
| better source of energy with better safety and density
| than hydrocarbons, we'll use it all. If not in cars, in
| power plants, if not there in military, if not there in
| 3rd world, etc.
| omg_ponies wrote:
| > The wonder composites that make electric cars possible
| are all oil.
|
| I'm sure composites make electric cars _better_ , but I
| don't think electric cars are _impossible_ without
| composites.
| wizofaus wrote:
| The same was likely said of whale blubber 150 years ago.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| And we almost used all of it then.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Synthesized replacements (starting from plant stocks or
| whatever) will probably be cheaper at some point. Like some
| point in the next several decades, not in the far flung
| future.
| fbdab103 wrote:
| That feels like it might be possible, but we would have
| to stop subsidizing corn in favor of plants with markedly
| better yields (eg switchgrass). That will require
| significant political capital.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > will continue to be dependent on petrochemical solids for
| long after we switch completely to electric vehicles and
| renewable energy
|
| Does anyone have insight in what the negative effects here
| are, if any? It feels like this should be problematic, but I
| just can't put my finger on what problems this is creating.
| Like e.g. extracting oil to create single-use plastics that
| get put in a landfill after usage: it sounds bad, but what's
| actually the problem (assuming the whole process is done
| without burning any of the oil - which afaik is possible)?
| mjhay wrote:
| Items that actually get reused a lot (e.g., not reusable
| shopping bags) aren't as bad waste-wise, for the simple reason
| less of them need to get made. Personally, I'd like to see
| plastics restricted to areas where they have major advantages
| over wood, steel, etc. Many consumer items like this would hold
| up well enough using bioplastics.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| > I'd like to see plastics restricted to areas where they
| have major advantages over wood, steel, etc.
|
| I suppose you could make a cheap laundry basket out of
| chicken wire, but there would have to be some way to protect
| from rust caused by damp clothes.
| mjhay wrote:
| Like I alluded to, some low-cost consumer products that
| aren't really meant to last forever (like a laundry basket)
| would be good candidates for bioplastics (some of which do
| fine with water).
| pvillano wrote:
| Alternatively, make a laundry basket that is meant to
| last forever.
| mjhay wrote:
| That would be ideal, but a lot more difficult to market.
| Most people just don't care enough when they buy items
| like this, and/or they don't want to pay a premium
| because they'll probably be moving soon/etc.
|
| Crap, if people just spotaneously started buying qualty,
| durable things, and companies actually made them, that
| would go an enormous way to help the global environmental
| collapse.
| pvillano wrote:
| A plastic laundry basket can be made to last forever.
| That's the point of this post.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| But they aren't. This guy got very lucky. Mine never last
| more than a few years. Most of them inevitably crack
| somewhere in less than a year. They are made so that you
| need to keep buying them. I probably buy 3 a year just to
| replace the ones that break.
| teg4n_ wrote:
| what the heck are you doing to your laundry baskets that
| you break 3 a year??? I don't think i've _ever_ broken a
| laundry basket.
| quesera wrote:
| Avoid hard plastics and square edges/sharp corners.
|
| Notice that the basket from the article has rounded
| edges, and rounded cutouts. The plastic appears to be
| thickish and should be _very_ slightly flexible /rubbery
| (bending because the material is flexible, not merely
| because it is thin).
|
| These products should (and definitely can) last decades.
| moloch-hai wrote:
| You are failing to drill out the ends of the cracks, as
| the author did, failing to glue, and failing to buy a
| better quality product, slightly more expensive, that
| would not demand you return to the dollar store so
| frequently.
|
| You have anyway lots of company. That should not be
| reassuring.
|
| (I use "you", here, to denote all readers in the same
| boat, not any particular individual.)
| jessaustin wrote:
| Reed/grass baskets are _really_ old technology. Like,
| prehistoric. There 's no need for newfangled materials
| developed only in the last several thousand years.
| 13of40 wrote:
| You can actually just look to what people were using before
| plastic became ubiquitous: wicker, cotton, burlap
|
| Unfortunately if you live in the US you're starting out at
| about $50 instead of $5. I think that's a little bit of a
| HCOL price point, though. I picked up a burlap shopping bag
| in India earlier this year for about the equivalent of five
| cents, that any store here would have charged a couple of
| bucks for.
| convolvatron wrote:
| I'm still using the reed clothes baskets I bought 30
| years ago...then they were around $10-20 ea
| ssivark wrote:
| I know nothing about these companies, but it's worth keeping in
| mind that this is the period after China joined the WTO and
| integrated deeper into the global economy for manufacturing -- so
| it's possible that these NJ manufacturers couldn't compete on
| cost with the Chinese ones, or even that these bankruptcies might
| have been part of an offshoring reorientation (either within the
| organization, or in the sector at large, which happened to
| asphyxiate certain suppliers). It's even possible that
| bankruptcies were strategically engineered by private equity to
| sequester profitable modules and discharge obligations,
| opportunistically exploiting macro trends.
|
| Ultimately, I think the takeaways might be far more nuanced and
| interesting than "pricing by value" -- there's no reason
| customers will pay more if your competition can make and sell
| good products costing less :-)
| JoeDaDude wrote:
| As an aside, that's a way cool design! Love the bubbles pattern.
| If I could get one today, I would.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| What a weird, boring post, I swear half this site is on some LSD
| flashback.
|
| Go outside, get laid, stop writing musings of injection mould
| baskets...
| hammock wrote:
| You are probably being rightfully downvoted (I'm only halfway
| through my morning coffee) but I found your comment hilarious
| and also relevant in a meta sort of way, and in my opinion
| worth keeping around as a contrarian point of view
| [deleted]
| humanistbot wrote:
| I can't believe this got to the front page and that you're
| being downvoted.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| The state of "Hacker" "News"
| [deleted]
| reilly3000 wrote:
| Almost nobody who gets a business up and running will go out of
| business by charging too much. The majority of businesses fail
| because of cashflow and profit margin issues. Show your product's
| worth and charge enough to be perpetually sustainable- or let it
| die.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-11 23:01 UTC)