We’ve all known one: that mate with the 1950s Pope fridge still keeping cans of beer cold in his garage. They don’t make ’em like that any more! But why don’t they?
Ten bucks says you’ve already come up with an answer: ‘planned obsolescence’. They make products to deliberately break after just a couple of years to make us perpetual customers. It’s typical evil capitalism! Well, like most things ‘everyone knows’, it’s a load of old cobblers.
Not only are the newer products superior in nearly every way to the older ones, they’re much, much, cheaper. You can buy a new refrigerator every decade or so with the new ones and still be better off than grandma who purchased that reliable old Pope.
Older refrigerators often have a reputation for lasting longer, but trade-offs are at play. Pre-1990s models were built with simpler, more durable components, such as robust compressors, and could last between 20 and 30 years with minimal maintenance.
However, they were less energy efficient, consuming two to three times more electricity than modern units. Newer refrigerators, designed under stricter energy regulations (e.g., EPA’s Energy Star standards), use advanced insulation, variable-speed compressors, and eco-friendly refrigerants.
These complex systems can be prone to failures, especially in electronic controls or sensors. As such, the average lifespan for modern units is between 10 and 15 years, though high-end brands such as Sub-Zero and Bosch can match the durability of older models.
But, see! They don’t last as long! We knew those grasping capitalists were up to something.
In fact, average lifespans (note that: average – for every 1950s fridge still chilling cans of Speight’s, millions more have been sent to the scrapheap) have only decreased by about 15 per cent. It’s not the wicked capitalists who are to blame, either: almost always, it’s interfering governments.
Every appliance service technician I spoke to – each with decades of experience repairing machines from multiple brands – immediately blamed federal regulations for water and energy efficiency for most frustrations with modern appliances... The main culprit is the set of efficiency standards for water and energy use for all cooking, refrigeration, and cleaning appliances.
When prices rise faster than hourly wages, the culprit is almost always government interference through excessive regulation, burdensome taxation, or inflationary policies. Unlike entrepreneurs, government officials don’t face the discipline of profit and loss. They spend without accountability and impose costs without consequences […]
Contrary to what Marxist university professors and progressive politicians claim, businesses like to lower prices, not raise them. Lower prices attract more customers, increase sales, and generate higher profits through scale. Each additional unit produced creates an opportunity to learn, improve, and reduce costs. These learning curves are the engine of progress. Lower costs enable even lower prices, which expand markets further.
Almost certainly the inability of politicians to figure out ways to impose strangling regulations on computers is why they’ve gotten so much better at a fraction of the price. Especially compared to wages. My first PC cost three grand and boasted a 486 processor, 4MB of RAM, and a 180MB hard drive. The same money today would buy a top-tier gaming PC that makes my ’90s PC look like a pocket calculator (I used to have to bare-boot it, just to play Doom).
Let’s go back to Grandma’s refrigerator. In 1956, you could buy a new Frigidaire for $470. Unskilled workers at the time were earning about $1.00 per hour, putting the time price at 470 hours. On July 4, 2025, you could buy one at Home Depot for $578 (the price has since increased to $628), but unskilled workers are earning closer to $17.50 an hour, putting the time price at 33 hours. For the time it took to earn the money to buy one refrigerator in 1956, you get over 14 refrigerators today. Even if they might not last as long as Grandma’s refrigerator, we’re still much better off.
Cars tell a similar story. In 1953, a brand new Holden FJ, a popular and affordable car, cost around $2,000. The average weekly income was $15, meaning a basic family sedan was equal to about 2.5 years’ average wages.
Adjusted to today’s money, that’s around $30,000 to $45,000. That’d buy everything from a Mazda 3 to a Subaru Forester. In terms of wages, that’s around three to five months’ average wage.
Or, put another way: you could buy three to six new cars today for what one would have cost you in the 1950s.
Then consider what a new car today is like, compared to a 1950s one. It’s like comparing that top-end gaming PC to a slide-rule.
So, maybe they don’t make ’em like they used to – and for that we should all be truly grateful.
