>
> On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, sbmarcus wrote:
>
> > Here's something to ponder. The guaranteed life of the economy line of
Bird
> > asphalt shingle roofing  applied in the 1920's was 30 years. In the
1970s
> > it was 20. Now its 15. Do you think that that was in response to
consumer
> > demand? Or what?
>
> It probably *is* in response to consumer demand in some sense.  Building
> things to last went out of fashion some time ago.
>
> Why do you think owners are willing to put vinyl siding on old wooden
> houses without vapor barriers, so that moisture builds up on the inside
of
> the new siding and rots the structure?

Its not because they make a conscious decision to destroy their homes as
members of the cult of ephemeral materia. Most people aren't Kwakiudals
(sic) or Dukabors (sic) (and ain't those two great words to use in one
sentence, however they are spelt). Its because they are kept in ignorance
of the consequences by the gigantic, evil vinyl siding trust. Being
intelligent consumers is not a fashionable subject to teach in our schools.

 Why do you think contractors build
> with plywood and pressboard that deglues and comes apart after a few
> decades?

Again, because an ill-informed public doesn't know to demand better, not
because the consumer enjoys buying a house ready to fall down around
his/her ears.

 Why do you think people triple (or more) the cost of purchases
> by borrowing the price at high interest rates?

Because the alternative, for most potential homeowners, would be to
continue paying rents which, as often as not, are greater than the payments
they are making to own similar housing, while building no equity
whatsoever. And, again, I am really amazed at the number of people there
are who go to their bankers and say "Hey, you're only charging me interest
that will accumulate to twice the cost of my house. Don't you think that
you'd better raise it?" Its almost as large as the number of people in
Connecticut who cause riots fighting over the latest shipment of square
tomatoes.

If you want to argue that we live in a culture of ignorant and resigned
consumers, and producers who don't give a shit, I certainly won't argue
with you. But, most of the clients I've dealt with over old houses,
antiques and custom furniture, are exceptions to that societal failing. And
that's not irrelevant, since what we started talking about here had to do
with standardization and its place in the preservation trades.

 Why do you think software
> written as recently as 1994 can't handle the year 2000?
>
>    1.  "The future is somebody else's problem."
>
>    2.  "I'll just throw it away and get a new one."
>
>    3.  "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."
>
>    4.  "I'll be far away from here by then."
>
>    5.  "It's cheaper this month."

Actually, most technologies in their infancy go through rapid evolution
that makes demands on the consumer. Usually, in complex technologies
especially, the rapid generational changes are, at least in part, resultant
from consumer sensitivity, where the feedback loop remains open until the
product has matured to the point where it provides most of what the
consumer market, itself evolving, has learned is what it needs. Study the
generational changes in automobiles, airplanes, communications. Certainly
the rapidity with which those generational changes take place has
accelerated, but that's a matter of degree not difference.

Bruce