Planned Obsolescence: Why Products are Designed to Break

BY SOFO ARCHON

How many times have you bought an electronic device, only to find that it stops functioning properly shortly after your purchase?

You spent a lot of money on it, and suddenly you’re frustrated to discover it no longer works. The result? Wasted time, labor, and resources—not to mention the toxic waste that ends up in landfills, poisoning our planet.

But why is this the case? Why is the lifespan of most products so short, despite the advanced, modern technological means of production?

Enter planned obsolescence.

The Need for Cyclical Consumption

Our economic system is based on consumption—the more we buy, the more money circulates in the economy, and the more the economy grows. If money stops moving, the system is bound to collapse, since people will neither be paid nor have money to buy the products and services they need or want.

There are two main ways society intentionally keeps people buying stuff:

Firstly, through advertising. We are exposed to hundreds of advertisements every day, all designed to convince us to keep shopping under the promise of a better life. Companies have turned our wants into artificial needs, making us crave things we don’t truly need—filling their pockets while emptying our own.

Secondly, through planned obsolescence. This production technique compels people to buy more of the same products by giving them items with deliberately short lifespans. Rather than creating goods to last as long as technically possible—considering we live on a finite planet with limited resources—companies, focused solely on sales, intentionally design low-quality products that will soon break, ensuring repeat purchases.

Planned Obsolescence & The Phoebus Light Bulb Cartel

In the early 20th century, industrial development in the US dramatically increased technical efficiency, resulting in higher-quality goods produced at a much faster pace. Although this was a great technological success, the longer lifespan of these goods slowed consumption—which was seen as undesirable for the economy.

To prevent this from happening further, people were encouraged to make more purchases—but it was found that this alone couldn’t make a significant difference. The “solution” introduced in the 1930s was to make it legally mandatory for all industries to produce goods with shorter lifespans, which was believed to help reduce unemployment and boost consumption.

This brings us to the case of the Phoebus light bulb cartel. In the 1930s, a single light bulb could last up to 2,500 hours, but the cartel forced all companies to limit bulbs to a maximum life of 1,000 hours in order to boost demand.

Today, most manufacturers create products with short life cycles to ensure repeat purchases. In other words, many products are intentionally designed to break shortly after purchase, encouraging the public to buy more in the future.

Market Efficiency vs Technical Efficiency

In our economic system, which is based on cyclical consumption, technical efficiency actually harms market efficiency—they cannot coexist. Increased technical efficiency reduces market efficiency, disrupting the economy’s flow.

But how sensible is it to maintain such an economic system, knowing how wasteful it is and the tremendous negative impacts it has on society and the natural world? Rather than urging people to buy more, wouldn’t it be wiser to use our current scientific knowledge to build an economic system grounded in technical efficiency and environmental sustainability?

I’ll leave you with these questions, hoping they help you realize how obsolete our economic system is and encourage you to explore alternative economic models that truly promote social and environmental well-being.