The former. A business would rather sell more now and spend more later.
It’s kind of called “planned obsolescence” now. It’s better to have sold you a pair of socks that last a year so I can sell you another pair next year. Selling you a needle and thread to repair that sock and get, say, three years of use out of them “cheats” me of 2/3 of my potential revenue.
Same thing applies to pretty much everything we buy these days.
On the other hand, it’s waaaay better for consumers (and society, and the environment) to repair those socks: it is less waste and far less effort.
Unfortunately, most Western democracies are corrupt enough to be beholden to corporate interests over social interests, so social policy tends to permit this kind of behavior.
I mean more from the organizational perpsective? It seems like there is little way to constrain the get credit now individually at the organization’s laterperil cycle
Because it’s better business to sell you a replacement pair of socks than sell you a needle and thread.
I mean for the business or organization or social policy itself?
The former. A business would rather sell more now and spend more later.
It’s kind of called “planned obsolescence” now. It’s better to have sold you a pair of socks that last a year so I can sell you another pair next year. Selling you a needle and thread to repair that sock and get, say, three years of use out of them “cheats” me of 2/3 of my potential revenue.
Same thing applies to pretty much everything we buy these days.
On the other hand, it’s waaaay better for consumers (and society, and the environment) to repair those socks: it is less waste and far less effort.
Unfortunately, most Western democracies are corrupt enough to be beholden to corporate interests over social interests, so social policy tends to permit this kind of behavior.
I mean more from the organizational perpsective? It seems like there is little way to constrain the get credit now individually at the organization’s laterperil cycle