As consumers, we’ve gotten so used to endless shopping, hauls, and reviews; influencers and celebrities telling us to buy this, buy that. But now a new trend is rising that seems to be telling us to do the complete opposite. Let’s talk about why more and more people are going for underconsumption core. Is it really just a fad? Or are we already seeing the rise of another cultural shift?
I mean, I've cut advertising out of my kids lives almost entirely. It's now down to mostly what is seen in stores as we go through them and product placement in movies and streaming, with an...
I mean, I've cut advertising out of my kids lives almost entirely. It's now down to mostly what is seen in stores as we go through them and product placement in movies and streaming, with an occasional asinine radio ad about spying on customers.
As such, we have about 10,000x less toys than most of their friends. We do have a lot of craft supplies and buckets of miscellaneous Legos at their disposal, so they often invent new things rather than demanding the latest and greatest garbage shilled on Disney. It is getting mildly worse as they get exposed to their peers raving about said garbage, but that's more excusable, and they end up pulling their friends back a bit too, so a net win IMO.
My one kid has been using a hot glue gun and Exacto knife unsupervised since Kindergarten, other parents are flabbergasted by this. It's amazing what a little instruction, patience, healthy respect for tools, and independence enable.
It's re-enforced for me that removing advertising reduces demand for unnecessary stuff. It is therefore essential to kill advertising in order to save the planet.
We already know how bad advertising is. Advertisers keep saying they are necessary to tell people about products and services they might not otherwise know of, and to be fair there is a lot of...
We already know how bad advertising is. Advertisers keep saying they are necessary to tell people about products and services they might not otherwise know of, and to be fair there is a lot of truth to that statement, but by far the largest advertisement campaigns are those meant to reinforce your recognition of brands you already know. Think your Coca Cola or Oreo. The people making the ads know this too; why else do you think it’s so rare to talk about how their thing is better than anyone else’s? Advertising makes the world a worse place, and because we have decided we would rather watch an advertisement than pay a little more for our media, it’s never going to go away.
No, but we can start seriously turning the dials against the most harmful advertising, the way we did with cigarettes and alcohol. Ban gambling ads. Ban food ads. Ban drug ads. Heavily regulate...
No, but we can start seriously turning the dials against the most harmful advertising, the way we did with cigarettes and alcohol.
Ban gambling ads. Ban food ads. Ban drug ads. Heavily regulate ads targeted at children, the same way we heavily regulate online services targetted at children.
Fully agree with this! Add a lot more information to packaging of food and drink. It needs to be more than a nutri-score in my opinion. Make it front and center how healthy or unhealthy a product...
Fully agree with this! Add a lot more information to packaging of food and drink. It needs to be more than a nutri-score in my opinion. Make it front and center how healthy or unhealthy a product is - the same way that you cannot avoid gruesome images of the damages of smoking on packs of cigarettes. It has to be that clear.
Ditto. Recently we had the opportunity to watch "regular tv" in a hotel room. Kiddo was initially very psyched. Then they found out they couldn't select show season or episode and couldn't rewind...
Ditto. Recently we had the opportunity to watch "regular tv" in a hotel room. Kiddo was initially very psyched. Then they found out they couldn't select show season or episode and couldn't rewind or skip ads and they lost interest within that first half hour. Went back to books.
Hard agree on we won't save the planet until advertising gets reined in. Also our planet won't be saved because of politics, heavily affected by "advertising" like gold council garbage and Super PAC "free speech" nonsense.
Unrelated to the original topic: I do feel that kids should be allowed to be injured in non-life-changing ways. It teaches limitations and caution that'll truly protect them in adulthood. I feel...
My one kid has been using a hot glue gun and Exacto knife unsupervised since Kindergarten, other parents are flabbergasted by this. It's amazing what a little instruction, patience, healthy respect for tools, and independence enable.
Unrelated to the original topic: I do feel that kids should be allowed to be injured in non-life-changing ways. It teaches limitations and caution that'll truly protect them in adulthood.
"According to a survey of around 1000 parents carried out by TNS-NIPO for Veiligheid.NL, says a press release, 79% of parents would be happy to let their children take risks while they played."
A national safety organization even encourages parents to let their kids take risks: "Risky play has a positive influence on children’s physical and mental health. Through it, they learn to evaluate risk, become self-sufficient and build their self-confidence."
I saw how Dutch playgrounds had a lot of metal and hard surfaces; the equipment seemed significantly taller than American ones. It was explained to me that on these playgrounds, kids learn their limits by testing them.
This is exactly it. I'll take a picture of it tomorrow, but right next to my kid's public preschool entrance, there is a poem with a line that says "Kids have the right to be allowed to fail."...
This is exactly it. I'll take a picture of it tomorrow, but right next to my kid's public preschool entrance, there is a poem with a line that says "Kids have the right to be allowed to fail."
Incidentally, this preschool also has what I've described as a car-centric Thuderdome. For the Fortnite players, it's like an IRL Nitrodome with those little fisher price pedal cars. Like 20 cars and some push lawnmower toys in a fenced-in asphalt basketball court.
It's weird how protective parents can be to their kids. Here in the US we have a thing called safety scissors, which are basically scissors that have been made out of blunt plastic that do not so...
It's weird how protective parents can be to their kids. Here in the US we have a thing called safety scissors, which are basically scissors that have been made out of blunt plastic that do not so much cut paper as they tear it. And I guess those are fine to give to toddlers, but I remember getting them all through elementary school. Likewise, when I was in the Boy Scouts, they did not allow you to carry knives until you earned a "totem chip", which I guess could say it's good that they do knife training, but these are also boys who are at least 10 years old and have likely matriculated from elementary school; it's bizarre to me to think that they would not have already learned the basics of how to handle a knife. Are there a lot of parents who are not teaching their children how to cut their own food, or involve them in cooking?
Maybe I'm the weird one for thinking these, though. Most of my childhood had me and my sister fending for ourselves, so we ended up teaching ourselves a lot of skills earlier than most.
wait wait when I was a kid safety scissors still had metal blades, they just had rounded ends so that they weren't good for stabbing (accidental or deliberate). They're making them out of plastic...
wait wait when I was a kid safety scissors still had metal blades, they just had rounded ends so that they weren't good for stabbing (accidental or deliberate). They're making them out of plastic now???
By age 10, I had been taught how to do a little cooking, but nothing that involved sharp knives. I think the most complex thing I could make was grilled cheese, and everything for that comes pre-sliced.
Doing a quick search it looks like scissors with blunt tips are called safety scissors as well, but I am specifically talking about ones like these:...
The link is broken for me for some reason! I believe in their existence though, I'm just kinda weirded out by them. The metal safety scissors were already plenty safe.
The link is broken for me for some reason! I believe in their existence though, I'm just kinda weirded out by them. The metal safety scissors were already plenty safe.
They do have metal blades they're just pretty colors I think. Theyre designed not to easily cut things that aren't paper, because as much as points are an issue, not cutting skin is important too....
They do have metal blades they're just pretty colors I think. Theyre designed not to easily cut things that aren't paper, because as much as points are an issue, not cutting skin is important too. At age 3, so is not giving yourself a haircut when parent leaves the room to pee. Or let the dog in.
Older kids would be fine with the all metal blunt ones. (If you look up Crayola my first safety scissors you should be able to see them)
The ones I had linked to are all-plastic. You can tell because they are semi-transparent; there's no metal blades hiding anywhere. But then again, I don't have them in person; maybe the photos are...
The ones I had linked to are all-plastic. You can tell because they are semi-transparent; there's no metal blades hiding anywhere.
But then again, I don't have them in person; maybe the photos are misleading?
I actually just looked up the scissors on Crayola's website and found their shop page with two reviews, both of them one star for not being able to cut paper with them.
Ah well that does mean they're possibly shit scissors then (skewed sample and all). I thought there were metal pieces under the plastic but I do think the intent is only to cut paper and not hair...
Ah well that does mean they're possibly shit scissors then (skewed sample and all). I thought there were metal pieces under the plastic but I do think the intent is only to cut paper and not hair or clothes or body parts for 3 year olds so if left unsupervised they don't do the surprise haircut so many kids have done over the years. If they actually don't work, I'd hope teachers would be supplied with others. put other brands on their donation lists.
I don't think the idea of safe scissors for that age range at a home art station or in a day care or pre-school setting is bad though as long as they can move up to "better" ones as they're older. I did just think that often those regular safety scissors also didn't cut anything because they were old and reused and blunt (from kids cutting who knows what?) by the time I got them. I did have a middle school teacher cut her finger nearly off with one of those guillotine-like paper cutters, so I may be more sympathetic to the idea of avoiding accidents among the kids too.
I think that if your child is too young to be trusted with rounded safety scissors, you shouldn't be leaving them unattended with any scissors, period.
I think that if your child is too young to be trusted with rounded safety scissors, you shouldn't be leaving them unattended with any scissors, period.
Intentionally left alone, I would generally agree. You don't typically leave your toddler alone for a particularly long period of time anyway. Though they do play solo more at that age. But there...
Intentionally left alone, I would generally agree. You don't typically leave your toddler alone for a particularly long period of time anyway. Though they do play solo more at that age. But there have been far too many stories of a questionable self-styled haircut (or makeover, or paint all over the walls) for me to assume that because it shouldn't happen, it doesn't. And especially in congregate settings like school and daycare where a distraction and a quick kid with a bad idea can cause a problem, I see the appeal.
Idk it's entirely common for toddlers to get their hands on things they shouldn't as part of learning. They also make fully blunt playdough scissors for that sort of thing, but I can see the benefit to "these only cut paper" because it does let you give the child more autonomy with them younger. If they work of course which per some of the reviews maybe not.
I don't actually believe it's possible for scissors to only be able to cut paper and not hair, and I think the complaints about the plastic scissors' ability to cut paper bear that out. In the end...
I don't actually believe it's possible for scissors to only be able to cut paper and not hair, and I think the complaints about the plastic scissors' ability to cut paper bear that out. In the end I think a child cutting their own or another child's hair is about as harmless as them drawing on the walls, and neither is worth anything particularly extreme to avoid it -- they're overall pretty harmless lessons for child and/or caregiver. Hair grows back, after all.
I don't think a couple of bucks on safety scissors is extreme for a 3 year old. And these have excellent reviews- https://a.co/d/esLc3Tm I can see their use and for example, if I was going to have...
I don't think a couple of bucks on safety scissors is extreme for a 3 year old.
I can see their use and for example, if I was going to have an art set at my house for my little niblings I might get them. Because they're all under the age of 4. And kids just like cutting paper sometimes.
Kids are going to do all sorts of things, but we give them washable markers not permanent ones generally for similar reasons. Give your 3 year old hedge clippers if it makes you happy, but I get why daycare doesn't want to hear parents complain about damaged clothes or hair. To me it lets adults not have to hover and give kids more autonomy in play at that age.
I just think the types of safety scissors that I grew up with (which honestly probably aren't that much different than the ones you linked, if there's a metal blade in there) are more than...
I just think the types of safety scissors that I grew up with (which honestly probably aren't that much different than the ones you linked, if there's a metal blade in there) are more than sufficient for preventing injuries and that they're fine for a 3 year old to use with supervision (and I don't think that means "hovering" necessarily), and that a transition to giving kids more autonomy with something like scissors entails teaching the kid what they can and can't use them on, not giving them scissors that don't really work. But if there are versions of this that work, by all means -- the comment I originally replied to seemed to be about a version of these that were not effective even at cutting paper.
Yeah I take 2 negative reviews and nothing else on a site with a grain of salt. I just finished these the equivalent of washable markers. They're adaptive to the developmental needs. I don't mean...
Yeah I take 2 negative reviews and nothing else on a site with a grain of salt. I just finished these the equivalent of washable markers. They're adaptive to the developmental needs.
I don't mean to say the options are hover all the time or use these, just being realistic that this is designed for the age where you will ask the child if they ate the cookie and they'll say no while crumbs spit out of their mouth. Teaching kids how to use scissors and knives while giving them things they can't easily hurt them selves with while learning (specifically while learning fine motor skills for the first time) is the goal, not either or.
And real life is parents getting distracted with another kid or dinner or caretakers juggling multiple kids or whatever. If they work for the intended purpose and help, like those washable markers, avoid something that may be a learning experience but will be a lot of work for the adults to deal with, I get it. I don't think it's extreme or particularly weird or underestimating their ability unless this is the only scissors they're allowed when they're older too, nor am I saying that parents that don't use safety scissors are monsters whose kids will die of scissor wounds.
I just don't really think it's necessary for "allowing kids more autonomy with scissors" to coexist with "giving kids scissors that aren't able to cause even incidental harm to property". I think...
I just don't really think it's necessary for "allowing kids more autonomy with scissors" to coexist with "giving kids scissors that aren't able to cause even incidental harm to property". I think the balance struck by normal safety scissors, which are very difficult to cause real harm with without intentional effort, makes more sense than scissors that don't work well even for the tasks the kids are supposed use them for (and I'm going to take the word of the earlier commenter I was talking with on that part, rather than relying on internet reviews one way or another, as I've never encountered these plastic safety scissors personally and I got the impression from their comments that they have). Washable markers are still good markers (and indeed, they have to be). I'm not against giving kids exposure to using things like scissors with safety features to prevent them from accidentally hurting themselves or others, I just think that the metal safety scissors I'm familiar with were already very effective at that.
I understand that. Akir referenced the reviews to me which is why I've been referring to the reviews. (The same scissors do have better reviews on Amazon) Bad products exist, neither of us have...
I understand that. Akir referenced the reviews to me which is why I've been referring to the reviews. (The same scissors do have better reviews on Amazon) Bad products exist, neither of us have used these so I can't speak to that either. (Going to point out that this would be the equivalent of an internet review anyway.). I generally try to avoid the "the thing we had when I was a kid was fine" sort of thing. Sometimes new products or safety standards come from bad things having happened. Sometimes they come from wanting to make things more accessible too (kids who particularly struggle with their motor skills might really benefit for example) and sometimes it's a cash grab for a pretty colored product that doesn't work. It'll stop selling if so.
But I'm objecting to the idea that "good enough in my day" is inherently accurate. Someone invented safety scissors in the first place after deciding two sharp knives with a screw holding them together were not great for kids. That was probably a good idea. Some come with an assisted open lever thing that is good for some kids who don't have great motor skills yet (or may never).
And honestly, I suspect a lot of it is "I do not want a parent to lose their shit on me because I have 20 kids to watch and one cut their hair off while another one had a tantrum" which is a lot of the gist of what I found looking them up.
If the full plastic ones are totally bad, sure they're bad, but I don't believe the concept of them is. (And the metal covered in plastic ones I linked also are only supposed to cut paper)
I agree that "the thing we had when I was a kid was fine" is something generally worth avoiding, but I'm really only referencing that it's what existed when I was a kid because there is otherwise...
I agree that "the thing we had when I was a kid was fine" is something generally worth avoiding, but I'm really only referencing that it's what existed when I was a kid because there is otherwise no way to distinguish between different things called safety scissors. I'm simply not compelled by any of the arguments that the other kind are actually better for kids learning to use scissors. You're free to disagree, but I think we've pretty much exhausted "ways to discuss child-safe scissors" at this point.
Fending for yourself now often means pre-made food. And even the most involved and engaged parents and kids are often exhausted after work/school, extra curriculars (and the transport there or...
Fending for yourself now often means pre-made food. And even the most involved and engaged parents and kids are often exhausted after work/school, extra curriculars (and the transport there or mandatory volunteer hours for), homework, etc. Add hours more if a travel team is involved of some sort.
Kids come to college not knowing how to wash their clothes. (And some come with all the knowledge, it varies) Schools just don't want to be responsible for the one kid that runs with scissors and stabs someone.
As a dutchman, the adventure park is quite the exception here. The average playground has also gotten more padded here. I remember almost no rubber padding anywhere when I was younger (~15 years...
As a dutchman, the adventure park is quite the exception here. The average playground has also gotten more padded here. I remember almost no rubber padding anywhere when I was younger (~15 years ago), but it's everywhere now.
There is also a very important part missing from that survey from the original source:
According to a survey by TNS-NIPO, many parents do recognise that risky play is important for their child's development. But in practice, parents mainly see obstacles such as fear that their child will injure himself or that others around them will dissaprove.
In the source you provided, they even mention Wales as an inspiration with their adventure playground.
As far as instruction, it goes something like this: Kid: Hey, what are you doing? Adult: Oh, I'm using <tool> to <do what tool does>. Do you want to try? Kid: Sure Adult: Watch while I do the...
As far as instruction, it goes something like this:
Kid: Hey, what are you doing?
Adult: Oh, I'm using <tool> to <do what tool does>. Do you want to try?
Kid: Sure
Adult: Watch while I do the basics. Then you get to try with me helping. After that, you can try on your own with me watching and helping.
Kid: OK
Adult: <continuously stress importance about being attentive about the most dangerous bits>
Kid: Either follows directions or gets slightly hurt.
We don't stop supervision until they've demonstrated proficiency. My elder child has had a lot more of these under their belt at a younger age because they are an attentive learner in the way my younger is not. Hot glue gun and exacto were some of the only "extreme" ones. And while the younger can't use those unsupervised, they are permitted to be around the elder while the elder is using them unsupervised. Some other things my kids have used before the age of 5 as a result that would probably give many other parents strokes:
Paring knives (and the big kitchen knife for the elder) to cut cucumbers
Adding pasta and stirring in boiling water (we are extra careful about supervision, boiling water no joke)
Stepladders
Screwdrivers (nothing amuses a 3 year old like screwing and unscrewing many screws from a pre-drilled board)
Drywall saw
Magnifying glass to light leaves on fire
Play unsupervised in the mostly-fenced-in backyard (without said magnifying glass)
Not who you replied to, but we've also aggressively cut out almost all advertising. We have a media server and sail the high seas for movies and TV; sometimes we watch PBS Kids which has a...
Not who you replied to, but we've also aggressively cut out almost all advertising. We have a media server and sail the high seas for movies and TV; sometimes we watch PBS Kids which has a "sponsored by" message sometimes but never for toys. Kiddo is six (first grade) so no unsupervised access to YouTube/internet at home, and ad blockers when we watch a video together. We pay for Spotify to avoid the ads.
The only ads I'm personally exposed to most days are sponsorship messages in YouTube or podcasts, and that one road in town with all the billboards. It's absolutely lovely.
Not a parent, but I’ve thought a lot about kids’ relationship with screens, but I’d never thought more specifically about advertising. Very cool to see your approach has a noticeable, positive...
Not a parent, but I’ve thought a lot about kids’ relationship with screens, but I’d never thought more specifically about advertising. Very cool to see your approach has a noticeable, positive impact. Kudos to you for being a thoughtful parent!
It's a good little video that covers a lot of angles: what is it, where's it from, common criticisms and boundaries of where it becomes just regular consunsumerism or fetishizing poverty. My...
It's a good little video that covers a lot of angles: what is it, where's it from, common criticisms and boundaries of where it becomes just regular consunsumerism or fetishizing poverty.
My personal opinion is that it's a trendy, click collecting way of saying "frugal is good". And I'm all for that.
The caution, but also where my hope lies, is that we will break free of consuming cheap easily breaking things in favor of one [item] that lasts decades. Cautionary Sam Vimes reference is needed here:
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.[4
My hope is that we will move away from fast fashion into quality cotton/linen/wool that lasts, and away from cheap pleather nonsense into one leather bag for life kind of thing. We can accessorize with colorful smaller things like a broch or a little dangly chain instead of needing a whole another trendy piece. But being able to BUY long-lasting items of good quality is itself highly problematic for the majority of us who can't afford to be frugal.
I recently looked into leather bags and even items in the hundred of dollars range won't last for life. Thousands of dollars for one bag is very different from the maths of 10 vs 50 boots. Recently I bought a pair of $200-300 Salomon shoes thinking they were expensive and hence will at least last a bit -- nope, they gave me wet feet within 6 months.
My hope is in buy it for life but I fear that there are no options left at all for quality item not just 5x, but even 20x what we can afford.
Dipping into planned obsolescence there. I feel there is a BIG statement to be made politically here where companies are forced to make their products repairable and as easily as possible, and by...
Dipping into planned obsolescence there. I feel there is a BIG statement to be made politically here where companies are forced to make their products repairable and as easily as possible, and by 3rd parties that are not sponsored by the same companies in any shape or form.
There's absolutely planned obsolescence, but there's a lot of passive apathetic obsolescence as well: fabric that won't survive 10+ washes; zippers so carelessly installed there isn't even a...
There's absolutely planned obsolescence, but there's a lot of passive apathetic obsolescence as well: fabric that won't survive 10+ washes; zippers so carelessly installed there isn't even a stopper sewn on; lack of lining; choosing bad cuts/parts of leather hide that isn't up for the job.... All these do is make landfill content. It should all be illegal -- but then who can afford the carefully tailored shirt or cobbled shoe?
Even now I can barely afford to clothe my kids in garbage at full retail prices. Especially shoes and coats. They outgrow them anywhere between 3 and 6 months like clockwork. I'd love for more...
Even now I can barely afford to clothe my kids in garbage at full retail prices. Especially shoes and coats. They outgrow them anywhere between 3 and 6 months like clockwork.
I'd love for more durable goods to make their way to the used market. Even if they cost 3x more used, it'll still be cheaper than retail garbage.
Outgrowing things so quickly is definitely a problem! About durable good though, I've been wanting to learn how to sew for this reason. Sewing machines can be insanely expensive but I feel like...
Outgrowing things so quickly is definitely a problem! About durable good though, I've been wanting to learn how to sew for this reason. Sewing machines can be insanely expensive but I feel like it's going to be worth the money in the long run if I can learn how to repair my own stuff or even better learn how to make my own clothes entirely. It's a time investment but would be very worth it in the long run.
Sewing machines can indeed get insanely expensive, but if you are just tailoring or sewing garments for yourself and your family, a very simple, non-computerized economy model from a reputable...
Sewing machines can indeed get insanely expensive, but if you are just tailoring or sewing garments for yourself and your family, a very simple, non-computerized economy model from a reputable brand will serve you well. There is no need to go fancy, and often the fancy machines are not actually better: they are just more specialized (e.g., machines that can quilt extremely fast, or machines that do coverstitching and nothing else) and may not actually do the things you want to do with your sewing machine.
To tack on to this, I would even highly reccomend learning to hand stitch first. You can get started with less than $20 of supplies and the skills you learn will translate well towards using a...
To tack on to this, I would even highly reccomend learning to hand stitch first. You can get started with less than $20 of supplies and the skills you learn will translate well towards using a machine, as you'll have a better understanding of what and why you're doing it.
Real basic, start with buttons. Then maybe a coaster. Then a small quilt or a pillow. Doing different kinds of stitches to learn why to use one or the other. They're so easy you can basically do it by accident.
It kind of reminds me of newer refrigerators. Unnecessary touch screens and smart functions, completely overengineered. I've seen a lot of resistance about those economy models though. That they...
It kind of reminds me of newer refrigerators. Unnecessary touch screens and smart functions, completely overengineered.
I've seen a lot of resistance about those economy models though. That they just do not last at all?
There exists a happy middle ground for many appliances. It's typically the lower mid-tiers of higher-end brands, like Bosche or Miele. They'll have the quality (or better) of a much more expensive...
There exists a happy middle ground for many appliances. It's typically the lower mid-tiers of higher-end brands, like Bosche or Miele. They'll have the quality (or better) of a much more expensive fridge, but without the bells and whistles.
My Boshe dishwasher has a metal basin. It barely has any other user-facing features than that, about 6 buttons total. And it's the best damn dishwasher I ever owned.
I typically look for energy star ratings, and see what the most efficient models are, and scope out what their feature sets look like. Anything more complex than an ice dispenser gets automatically disqualified.
At the end of the day, I do think that the best way we can insure minimum quality is to mandate minimum 10-year parts and labor guarantees for most goods that qualify as tools or appliances. That level of mandate would make it incredibly expensive to manufacture garbage, as the labor costs to repeatedly install failing parts would dwarf the quality-cutting savings.
Oh yeah, you want to avoid the ridiculously cheap sewing machines, or anything that has a lot of features for the price point (instead, go for something that is pretty basic and has metal rather...
Oh yeah, you want to avoid the ridiculously cheap sewing machines, or anything that has a lot of features for the price point (instead, go for something that is pretty basic and has metal rather than plastic internal components; this will make it a much more heavy machine, but it is worth it). I don't think of these cheap, not-fit-for-purpose machines as economy sewing machines; it's a false economy because they will ruin a lot of the projects you work on, waste your time, and kill your interest in sewing.
I personally use a Janome HD3000 (except it's called the Janome MW3018 in my country), which is basically a beefed up version of the HD1000 for sewing particularly thick material (I sew a lot of canvas) — but both are good beginner machines. Most other reputable sewing machine brands, such as Brother, will also offer some kind of no-frills, generalist workhouse suited to beginners who just want to make clothes. You can also sometimes find secondhand ones when people sell their old beginner machines to upgrade to something faster or more specialized.
If you go to a specialist sewing machine shop (not a general craft store, but the kind of place that focuses on sewing machines and services them), they will likely let you try different sewing machines and can give you some advice. They also often have sewing classes, which can be very handy.
I'll add a vote for Janome HD3000. I found one (new unused) returned and on the clearance section in JoAnn's for $400. It's excellent, can do all the stitches I need, easy to use, and built to last.
I'll add a vote for Janome HD3000. I found one (new unused) returned and on the clearance section in JoAnn's for $400. It's excellent, can do all the stitches I need, easy to use, and built to last.
I agree but where are you getting clothes that can’t be washed ten times? 80 percent of my wardrobe is from Uniqlo or hnm. The only shirts I have with holes in them are 7+ years old. I’m not...
I agree but where are you getting clothes that can’t be washed ten times? 80 percent of my wardrobe is from Uniqlo or hnm. The only shirts I have with holes in them are 7+ years old. I’m not getting rid of my clothes much. The most common reason I get rid of clothes are my collars getting stained pretty badly or my sweaters get holes in the elbows.
(I'm not buying a lot of these but the very rare items I have are <10 washes) Walmart. Super store. Giant Tiger. You're not thinking cheap enough. They don't disintegrated like cartoon clothing in...
(I'm not buying a lot of these but the very rare items I have are <10 washes) Walmart. Super store. Giant Tiger. You're not thinking cheap enough. They don't disintegrated like cartoon clothing in acid rain, but the edges fray and the collars ripple and buttons/zippers can be really bad. I've never bought Temu but I imagine it's similar.
H&M will survive 10 washes. Not a fan of their sewing techniques though.
UNIQLO is right at the cusp of what I consider "high end" for my frugal butt. Alongside MUJI clothing
This could also be a difference between men's and women's clothing. Next time you go shopping, just feel the fabric of the average men's t-shirt between your fingers and then go to the women's...
This could also be a difference between men's and women's clothing. Next time you go shopping, just feel the fabric of the average men's t-shirt between your fingers and then go to the women's department and feel those. I guarantee you that the vast majority of the latter are much thinner and much flimsier than the former.
yeah, t-shirts are where this is by far the most obvious in my wardrobe. The different materials used for jeans at least have their own pros and cons, but the women's t-shirts and mens t-shirts at...
yeah, t-shirts are where this is by far the most obvious in my wardrobe. The different materials used for jeans at least have their own pros and cons, but the women's t-shirts and mens t-shirts at the same store almost always are night and day in terms of sturdiness for no apparent reason.
One bit of encouraging repairability through legal means that I believe is important but rarely gets talked about are minimum quality mandates for replacement parts. The reason I think this is...
One bit of encouraging repairability through legal means that I believe is important but rarely gets talked about are minimum quality mandates for replacement parts.
The reason I think this is because in my mind, many of the benefits of repairability will be wiped out if the market suddenly gets flooded with poor quality AliExpress-tier parts. For the most popular products like iPhones and Galaxies, the sheer number of these could push the situation to the point where the negative impact of the cheap parts actually makes the net impact of the product being repaired worse than it’d been without repairability requirements.
There should similarly be minimum requirements for consumer protection on parts — warranties, safety regulations, etc, especially for components like batteries.
So in the US for example, I envision a federal organization that’s similar to the FCC that all parts must be approved by in order to be sold. Maybe call it the Federal Sustainability Commission or Federal Consumer Protection Commission or something.
Generally speaking, replacement parts have warranties, too, which helps to maintain a minimum baseline of quality. I can't speak for everyone, but in my industry most repair parts have warranties...
Generally speaking, replacement parts have warranties, too, which helps to maintain a minimum baseline of quality. I can't speak for everyone, but in my industry most repair parts have warranties ranging from 180-365 days.
I would imagine that it depends on the industry and where the parts are sourced from. A lot of the electronics parts that can be found on Amazon might come with something labeled a warranty, but...
I would imagine that it depends on the industry and where the parts are sourced from.
A lot of the electronics parts that can be found on Amazon might come with something labeled a warranty, but they’re not worth the paper they’re printed on because they’re made by no name manufacturers and sold by fly-by-night dropshippers, all of which is possible because there are no enforced standards.
That's because we don't hold retailers accountable in the US. Some countries (Australia and at least parts of the EU come to mind) have a mandatory implied warranty that the retailer is on the...
That's because we don't hold retailers accountable in the US. Some countries (Australia and at least parts of the EU come to mind) have a mandatory implied warranty that the retailer is on the hook for, requiring replacement or refund for a product that isn't "fit for purpose," up to something like a year from purchase. If you don't want to eat the costs, you don't sell the product that's likely to incur them.
Price isn't always an indication of quality, either. I have Gap t-shirts from goodwill that outlasted several attempts to buy higher quality things which fell apart quickly.
Price isn't always an indication of quality, either. I have Gap t-shirts from goodwill that outlasted several attempts to buy higher quality things which fell apart quickly.
I watched this a couple weeks ago and it's great. I'm not in the tiktok or even twitter sphere at all, so I love watching Cara because her subjects are just entirely new to me as a concept. It's...
I watched this a couple weeks ago and it's great. I'm not in the tiktok or even twitter sphere at all, so I love watching Cara because her subjects are just entirely new to me as a concept. It's kind of mind blowing that underconsumption is a trend and not just normal behavior, but I suppose if a trend is what people need to stop wasting money on dumb stuff, then I'm all for it!
Personally, I was absolutely caught up in overconsuming for the last few years. I went from making $45k a year to $120k a year and lifestyle creep hit me hard. In the last year or so I've gone through a lot of effort to cut down on consumption, save more money, and take more time buying stuff that I do think I need (cuz sometimes it turns out I don't and I forget about it after 2 weeks). It's helped a ton now that I'm entirely off reddit except for some sports and game subreddits (hobby subreddits there were killing my wallet as you always feel like you need to buy and upgrade everything due to community pressure).
Anyways, Cara's channel is great and she does a good job of shining a spotlight into some areas many people probably don't think too much about. I've had to reflect quite a bit after I started watching her.
Thanks for introducing me to her! And yeah I thought especially this one fit tildes really well - and I can totally see the resemblance and similarities between them lol!
Thanks for introducing me to her! And yeah I thought especially this one fit tildes really well - and I can totally see the resemblance and similarities between them lol!
Anecdotally, myself and my other gen Z friends participate in a lot of this both because it's practical and because our purchasing power is so garbage we don't have a choice.
Anecdotally, myself and my other gen Z friends participate in a lot of this both because it's practical and because our purchasing power is so garbage we don't have a choice.
We should credit The Oatmeal: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/sell_generation Incidentally, I remember this comic differently, where it was a few panels on the appropriate way to sell, with pictures...
Incidentally, I remember this comic differently, where it was a few panels on the appropriate way to sell, with pictures of device in a salesperson's hand. I must have skipped universes again.
I'm not sure there really was an age of "quality advertising". Sure, it was different in the past, but there was a lot of really toxic advertisements as well. I remember in one of my high school...
I'm not sure there really was an age of "quality advertising". Sure, it was different in the past, but there was a lot of really toxic advertisements as well. I remember in one of my high school libraries they had printed archive copies of a homemaking magazine (I think Better Homes and Gardens), and the advertisements could get really negative. They ranged between "buy a vaccuum and have more time to take care of baby!" to "You'll never get a man if you can't make good coffee (and you can't make good coffee with the other guys)!" Those kinds of messages tend to be glossed over because of the purity aesthetic common to them.
Oh sure, advertising has always been problematic. Ralph Nader and Vance Packard and Justice Brandeis would all have a lot to say about it. But it wasn't all bad all the time.
Oh sure, advertising has always been problematic. Ralph Nader and Vance Packard and Justice Brandeis would all have a lot to say about it. But it wasn't all bad all the time.
I mean, I've cut advertising out of my kids lives almost entirely. It's now down to mostly what is seen in stores as we go through them and product placement in movies and streaming, with an occasional asinine radio ad about spying on customers.
As such, we have about 10,000x less toys than most of their friends. We do have a lot of craft supplies and buckets of miscellaneous Legos at their disposal, so they often invent new things rather than demanding the latest and greatest garbage shilled on Disney. It is getting mildly worse as they get exposed to their peers raving about said garbage, but that's more excusable, and they end up pulling their friends back a bit too, so a net win IMO.
My one kid has been using a hot glue gun and Exacto knife unsupervised since Kindergarten, other parents are flabbergasted by this. It's amazing what a little instruction, patience, healthy respect for tools, and independence enable.
It's re-enforced for me that removing advertising reduces demand for unnecessary stuff. It is therefore essential to kill advertising in order to save the planet.
We already know how bad advertising is. Advertisers keep saying they are necessary to tell people about products and services they might not otherwise know of, and to be fair there is a lot of truth to that statement, but by far the largest advertisement campaigns are those meant to reinforce your recognition of brands you already know. Think your Coca Cola or Oreo. The people making the ads know this too; why else do you think it’s so rare to talk about how their thing is better than anyone else’s? Advertising makes the world a worse place, and because we have decided we would rather watch an advertisement than pay a little more for our media, it’s never going to go away.
No, but we can start seriously turning the dials against the most harmful advertising, the way we did with cigarettes and alcohol.
Ban gambling ads. Ban food ads. Ban drug ads. Heavily regulate ads targeted at children, the same way we heavily regulate online services targetted at children.
And I hope the dials get turned harder and harder down until the only format allowed left is comparison for features for said products.
Fully agree with this! Add a lot more information to packaging of food and drink. It needs to be more than a nutri-score in my opinion. Make it front and center how healthy or unhealthy a product is - the same way that you cannot avoid gruesome images of the damages of smoking on packs of cigarettes. It has to be that clear.
Ditto. Recently we had the opportunity to watch "regular tv" in a hotel room. Kiddo was initially very psyched. Then they found out they couldn't select show season or episode and couldn't rewind or skip ads and they lost interest within that first half hour. Went back to books.
Hard agree on we won't save the planet until advertising gets reined in. Also our planet won't be saved because of politics, heavily affected by "advertising" like gold council garbage and Super PAC "free speech" nonsense.
Unrelated to the original topic: I do feel that kids should be allowed to be injured in non-life-changing ways. It teaches limitations and caution that'll truly protect them in adulthood.
I feel that modern society unhealthily enshrines child safety to the point where people grow up not knowing their limitations: it makes me think of the woman who got herself stuck upside-down for seven hours between two boulders trying to retrieve her phone.
When I lived in the Netherlands, I got to witness how Dutch culture encourages risk-taking in children:
I saw how Dutch playgrounds had a lot of metal and hard surfaces; the equipment seemed significantly taller than American ones. It was explained to me that on these playgrounds, kids learn their limits by testing them.
To be honest, Dutch playgrounds seemed crazy fun (image from an Amsterdam adventure park for kids), in comparison to the uber-safe playgrounds we have in the US that seem stripped of all dangers as well as fun.
This is exactly it. I'll take a picture of it tomorrow, but right next to my kid's public preschool entrance, there is a poem with a line that says "Kids have the right to be allowed to fail."
Incidentally, this preschool also has what I've described as a car-centric Thuderdome. For the Fortnite players, it's like an IRL Nitrodome with those little fisher price pedal cars. Like 20 cars and some push lawnmower toys in a fenced-in asphalt basketball court.
It's weird how protective parents can be to their kids. Here in the US we have a thing called safety scissors, which are basically scissors that have been made out of blunt plastic that do not so much cut paper as they tear it. And I guess those are fine to give to toddlers, but I remember getting them all through elementary school. Likewise, when I was in the Boy Scouts, they did not allow you to carry knives until you earned a "totem chip", which I guess could say it's good that they do knife training, but these are also boys who are at least 10 years old and have likely matriculated from elementary school; it's bizarre to me to think that they would not have already learned the basics of how to handle a knife. Are there a lot of parents who are not teaching their children how to cut their own food, or involve them in cooking?
Maybe I'm the weird one for thinking these, though. Most of my childhood had me and my sister fending for ourselves, so we ended up teaching ourselves a lot of skills earlier than most.
wait wait when I was a kid safety scissors still had metal blades, they just had rounded ends so that they weren't good for stabbing (accidental or deliberate). They're making them out of plastic now???
By age 10, I had been taught how to do a little cooking, but nothing that involved sharp knives. I think the most complex thing I could make was grilled cheese, and everything for that comes pre-sliced.
Doing a quick search it looks like scissors with blunt tips are called safety scissors as well, but I am specifically talking about ones like these: https://www.michaels.com/product/multipack-of-6---crayola-my-first-safety-scissors-3pkg-181449921561870342
The link is broken for me for some reason! I believe in their existence though, I'm just kinda weirded out by them. The metal safety scissors were already plenty safe.
They do have metal blades they're just pretty colors I think. Theyre designed not to easily cut things that aren't paper, because as much as points are an issue, not cutting skin is important too. At age 3, so is not giving yourself a haircut when parent leaves the room to pee. Or let the dog in.
Older kids would be fine with the all metal blunt ones. (If you look up Crayola my first safety scissors you should be able to see them)
The ones I had linked to are all-plastic. You can tell because they are semi-transparent; there's no metal blades hiding anywhere.
But then again, I don't have them in person; maybe the photos are misleading?
I actually just looked up the scissors on Crayola's website and found their shop page with two reviews, both of them one star for not being able to cut paper with them.
Ah well that does mean they're possibly shit scissors then (skewed sample and all). I thought there were metal pieces under the plastic but I do think the intent is only to cut paper and not hair or clothes or body parts for 3 year olds so if left unsupervised they don't do the surprise haircut so many kids have done over the years. If they actually don't work, I'd hope teachers would
be supplied with others.put other brands on their donation lists.I don't think the idea of safe scissors for that age range at a home art station or in a day care or pre-school setting is bad though as long as they can move up to "better" ones as they're older. I did just think that often those regular safety scissors also didn't cut anything because they were old and reused and blunt (from kids cutting who knows what?) by the time I got them. I did have a middle school teacher cut her finger nearly off with one of those guillotine-like paper cutters, so I may be more sympathetic to the idea of avoiding accidents among the kids too.
I think that if your child is too young to be trusted with rounded safety scissors, you shouldn't be leaving them unattended with any scissors, period.
Intentionally left alone, I would generally agree. You don't typically leave your toddler alone for a particularly long period of time anyway. Though they do play solo more at that age. But there have been far too many stories of a questionable self-styled haircut (or makeover, or paint all over the walls) for me to assume that because it shouldn't happen, it doesn't. And especially in congregate settings like school and daycare where a distraction and a quick kid with a bad idea can cause a problem, I see the appeal.
Idk it's entirely common for toddlers to get their hands on things they shouldn't as part of learning. They also make fully blunt playdough scissors for that sort of thing, but I can see the benefit to "these only cut paper" because it does let you give the child more autonomy with them younger. If they work of course which per some of the reviews maybe not.
I don't actually believe it's possible for scissors to only be able to cut paper and not hair, and I think the complaints about the plastic scissors' ability to cut paper bear that out. In the end I think a child cutting their own or another child's hair is about as harmless as them drawing on the walls, and neither is worth anything particularly extreme to avoid it -- they're overall pretty harmless lessons for child and/or caregiver. Hair grows back, after all.
I don't think a couple of bucks on safety scissors is extreme for a 3 year old.
And these have excellent reviews- https://a.co/d/esLc3Tm
I can see their use and for example, if I was going to have an art set at my house for my little niblings I might get them. Because they're all under the age of 4. And kids just like cutting paper sometimes.
Kids are going to do all sorts of things, but we give them washable markers not permanent ones generally for similar reasons. Give your 3 year old hedge clippers if it makes you happy, but I get why daycare doesn't want to hear parents complain about damaged clothes or hair. To me it lets adults not have to hover and give kids more autonomy in play at that age.
I just think the types of safety scissors that I grew up with (which honestly probably aren't that much different than the ones you linked, if there's a metal blade in there) are more than sufficient for preventing injuries and that they're fine for a 3 year old to use with supervision (and I don't think that means "hovering" necessarily), and that a transition to giving kids more autonomy with something like scissors entails teaching the kid what they can and can't use them on, not giving them scissors that don't really work. But if there are versions of this that work, by all means -- the comment I originally replied to seemed to be about a version of these that were not effective even at cutting paper.
Yeah I take 2 negative reviews and nothing else on a site with a grain of salt. I just finished these the equivalent of washable markers. They're adaptive to the developmental needs.
I don't mean to say the options are hover all the time or use these, just being realistic that this is designed for the age where you will ask the child if they ate the cookie and they'll say no while crumbs spit out of their mouth. Teaching kids how to use scissors and knives while giving them things they can't easily hurt them selves with while learning (specifically while learning fine motor skills for the first time) is the goal, not either or.
And real life is parents getting distracted with another kid or dinner or caretakers juggling multiple kids or whatever. If they work for the intended purpose and help, like those washable markers, avoid something that may be a learning experience but will be a lot of work for the adults to deal with, I get it. I don't think it's extreme or particularly weird or underestimating their ability unless this is the only scissors they're allowed when they're older too, nor am I saying that parents that don't use safety scissors are monsters whose kids will die of scissor wounds.
I just don't really think it's necessary for "allowing kids more autonomy with scissors" to coexist with "giving kids scissors that aren't able to cause even incidental harm to property". I think the balance struck by normal safety scissors, which are very difficult to cause real harm with without intentional effort, makes more sense than scissors that don't work well even for the tasks the kids are supposed use them for (and I'm going to take the word of the earlier commenter I was talking with on that part, rather than relying on internet reviews one way or another, as I've never encountered these plastic safety scissors personally and I got the impression from their comments that they have). Washable markers are still good markers (and indeed, they have to be). I'm not against giving kids exposure to using things like scissors with safety features to prevent them from accidentally hurting themselves or others, I just think that the metal safety scissors I'm familiar with were already very effective at that.
I understand that. Akir referenced the reviews to me which is why I've been referring to the reviews. (The same scissors do have better reviews on Amazon) Bad products exist, neither of us have used these so I can't speak to that either. (Going to point out that this would be the equivalent of an internet review anyway.). I generally try to avoid the "the thing we had when I was a kid was fine" sort of thing. Sometimes new products or safety standards come from bad things having happened. Sometimes they come from wanting to make things more accessible too (kids who particularly struggle with their motor skills might really benefit for example) and sometimes it's a cash grab for a pretty colored product that doesn't work. It'll stop selling if so.
But I'm objecting to the idea that "good enough in my day" is inherently accurate. Someone invented safety scissors in the first place after deciding two sharp knives with a screw holding them together were not great for kids. That was probably a good idea. Some come with an assisted open lever thing that is good for some kids who don't have great motor skills yet (or may never).
And honestly, I suspect a lot of it is "I do not want a parent to lose their shit on me because I have 20 kids to watch and one cut their hair off while another one had a tantrum" which is a lot of the gist of what I found looking them up.
If the full plastic ones are totally bad, sure they're bad, but I don't believe the concept of them is. (And the metal covered in plastic ones I linked also are only supposed to cut paper)
I agree that "the thing we had when I was a kid was fine" is something generally worth avoiding, but I'm really only referencing that it's what existed when I was a kid because there is otherwise no way to distinguish between different things called safety scissors. I'm simply not compelled by any of the arguments that the other kind are actually better for kids learning to use scissors. You're free to disagree, but I think we've pretty much exhausted "ways to discuss child-safe scissors" at this point.
Fending for yourself now often means pre-made food. And even the most involved and engaged parents and kids are often exhausted after work/school, extra curriculars (and the transport there or mandatory volunteer hours for), homework, etc. Add hours more if a travel team is involved of some sort.
Kids come to college not knowing how to wash their clothes. (And some come with all the knowledge, it varies) Schools just don't want to be responsible for the one kid that runs with scissors and stabs someone.
As a dutchman, the adventure park is quite the exception here. The average playground has also gotten more padded here. I remember almost no rubber padding anywhere when I was younger (~15 years ago), but it's everywhere now.
There is also a very important part missing from that survey from the original source:
In the source you provided, they even mention Wales as an inspiration with their adventure playground.
Would you mind sharing how you instructed your kids? I don't doubt it's possible, just wondering approach is most effective here.
As far as instruction, it goes something like this:
Kid: Hey, what are you doing?
Adult: Oh, I'm using <tool> to <do what tool does>. Do you want to try?
Kid: Sure
Adult: Watch while I do the basics. Then you get to try with me helping. After that, you can try on your own with me watching and helping.
Kid: OK
Adult: <continuously stress importance about being attentive about the most dangerous bits>
Kid: Either follows directions or gets slightly hurt.
We don't stop supervision until they've demonstrated proficiency. My elder child has had a lot more of these under their belt at a younger age because they are an attentive learner in the way my younger is not. Hot glue gun and exacto were some of the only "extreme" ones. And while the younger can't use those unsupervised, they are permitted to be around the elder while the elder is using them unsupervised. Some other things my kids have used before the age of 5 as a result that would probably give many other parents strokes:
Not who you replied to, but we've also aggressively cut out almost all advertising. We have a media server and sail the high seas for movies and TV; sometimes we watch PBS Kids which has a "sponsored by" message sometimes but never for toys. Kiddo is six (first grade) so no unsupervised access to YouTube/internet at home, and ad blockers when we watch a video together. We pay for Spotify to avoid the ads.
The only ads I'm personally exposed to most days are sponsorship messages in YouTube or podcasts, and that one road in town with all the billboards. It's absolutely lovely.
Not a parent, but I’ve thought a lot about kids’ relationship with screens, but I’d never thought more specifically about advertising. Very cool to see your approach has a noticeable, positive impact. Kudos to you for being a thoughtful parent!
It's a good little video that covers a lot of angles: what is it, where's it from, common criticisms and boundaries of where it becomes just regular consunsumerism or fetishizing poverty.
My personal opinion is that it's a trendy, click collecting way of saying "frugal is good". And I'm all for that.
The caution, but also where my hope lies, is that we will break free of consuming cheap easily breaking things in favor of one [item] that lasts decades. Cautionary Sam Vimes reference is needed here:
My hope is that we will move away from fast fashion into quality cotton/linen/wool that lasts, and away from cheap pleather nonsense into one leather bag for life kind of thing. We can accessorize with colorful smaller things like a broch or a little dangly chain instead of needing a whole another trendy piece. But being able to BUY long-lasting items of good quality is itself highly problematic for the majority of us who can't afford to be frugal.
I recently looked into leather bags and even items in the hundred of dollars range won't last for life. Thousands of dollars for one bag is very different from the maths of 10 vs 50 boots. Recently I bought a pair of $200-300 Salomon shoes thinking they were expensive and hence will at least last a bit -- nope, they gave me wet feet within 6 months.
My hope is in buy it for life but I fear that there are no options left at all for quality item not just 5x, but even 20x what we can afford.
Dipping into planned obsolescence there. I feel there is a BIG statement to be made politically here where companies are forced to make their products repairable and as easily as possible, and by 3rd parties that are not sponsored by the same companies in any shape or form.
There's absolutely planned obsolescence, but there's a lot of passive apathetic obsolescence as well: fabric that won't survive 10+ washes; zippers so carelessly installed there isn't even a stopper sewn on; lack of lining; choosing bad cuts/parts of leather hide that isn't up for the job.... All these do is make landfill content. It should all be illegal -- but then who can afford the carefully tailored shirt or cobbled shoe?
Even now I can barely afford to clothe my kids in garbage at full retail prices. Especially shoes and coats. They outgrow them anywhere between 3 and 6 months like clockwork.
I'd love for more durable goods to make their way to the used market. Even if they cost 3x more used, it'll still be cheaper than retail garbage.
Outgrowing things so quickly is definitely a problem! About durable good though, I've been wanting to learn how to sew for this reason. Sewing machines can be insanely expensive but I feel like it's going to be worth the money in the long run if I can learn how to repair my own stuff or even better learn how to make my own clothes entirely. It's a time investment but would be very worth it in the long run.
Sewing machines can indeed get insanely expensive, but if you are just tailoring or sewing garments for yourself and your family, a very simple, non-computerized economy model from a reputable brand will serve you well. There is no need to go fancy, and often the fancy machines are not actually better: they are just more specialized (e.g., machines that can quilt extremely fast, or machines that do coverstitching and nothing else) and may not actually do the things you want to do with your sewing machine.
To tack on to this, I would even highly reccomend learning to hand stitch first. You can get started with less than $20 of supplies and the skills you learn will translate well towards using a machine, as you'll have a better understanding of what and why you're doing it.
Real basic, start with buttons. Then maybe a coaster. Then a small quilt or a pillow. Doing different kinds of stitches to learn why to use one or the other. They're so easy you can basically do it by accident.
It kind of reminds me of newer refrigerators. Unnecessary touch screens and smart functions, completely overengineered.
I've seen a lot of resistance about those economy models though. That they just do not last at all?
There exists a happy middle ground for many appliances. It's typically the lower mid-tiers of higher-end brands, like Bosche or Miele. They'll have the quality (or better) of a much more expensive fridge, but without the bells and whistles.
My Boshe dishwasher has a metal basin. It barely has any other user-facing features than that, about 6 buttons total. And it's the best damn dishwasher I ever owned.
I typically look for energy star ratings, and see what the most efficient models are, and scope out what their feature sets look like. Anything more complex than an ice dispenser gets automatically disqualified.
At the end of the day, I do think that the best way we can insure minimum quality is to mandate minimum 10-year parts and labor guarantees for most goods that qualify as tools or appliances. That level of mandate would make it incredibly expensive to manufacture garbage, as the labor costs to repeatedly install failing parts would dwarf the quality-cutting savings.
Oh yeah, you want to avoid the ridiculously cheap sewing machines, or anything that has a lot of features for the price point (instead, go for something that is pretty basic and has metal rather than plastic internal components; this will make it a much more heavy machine, but it is worth it). I don't think of these cheap, not-fit-for-purpose machines as economy sewing machines; it's a false economy because they will ruin a lot of the projects you work on, waste your time, and kill your interest in sewing.
I personally use a Janome HD3000 (except it's called the Janome MW3018 in my country), which is basically a beefed up version of the HD1000 for sewing particularly thick material (I sew a lot of canvas) — but both are good beginner machines. Most other reputable sewing machine brands, such as Brother, will also offer some kind of no-frills, generalist workhouse suited to beginners who just want to make clothes. You can also sometimes find secondhand ones when people sell their old beginner machines to upgrade to something faster or more specialized.
If you go to a specialist sewing machine shop (not a general craft store, but the kind of place that focuses on sewing machines and services them), they will likely let you try different sewing machines and can give you some advice. They also often have sewing classes, which can be very handy.
I'll add a vote for Janome HD3000. I found one (new unused) returned and on the clearance section in JoAnn's for $400. It's excellent, can do all the stitches I need, easy to use, and built to last.
I agree but where are you getting clothes that can’t be washed ten times? 80 percent of my wardrobe is from Uniqlo or hnm. The only shirts I have with holes in them are 7+ years old. I’m not getting rid of my clothes much. The most common reason I get rid of clothes are my collars getting stained pretty badly or my sweaters get holes in the elbows.
(I'm not buying a lot of these but the very rare items I have are <10 washes) Walmart. Super store. Giant Tiger. You're not thinking cheap enough. They don't disintegrated like cartoon clothing in acid rain, but the edges fray and the collars ripple and buttons/zippers can be really bad. I've never bought Temu but I imagine it's similar.
H&M will survive 10 washes. Not a fan of their sewing techniques though.
UNIQLO is right at the cusp of what I consider "high end" for my frugal butt. Alongside MUJI clothing
This could also be a difference between men's and women's clothing. Next time you go shopping, just feel the fabric of the average men's t-shirt between your fingers and then go to the women's department and feel those. I guarantee you that the vast majority of the latter are much thinner and much flimsier than the former.
yeah, t-shirts are where this is by far the most obvious in my wardrobe. The different materials used for jeans at least have their own pros and cons, but the women's t-shirts and mens t-shirts at the same store almost always are night and day in terms of sturdiness for no apparent reason.
One bit of encouraging repairability through legal means that I believe is important but rarely gets talked about are minimum quality mandates for replacement parts.
The reason I think this is because in my mind, many of the benefits of repairability will be wiped out if the market suddenly gets flooded with poor quality AliExpress-tier parts. For the most popular products like iPhones and Galaxies, the sheer number of these could push the situation to the point where the negative impact of the cheap parts actually makes the net impact of the product being repaired worse than it’d been without repairability requirements.
There should similarly be minimum requirements for consumer protection on parts — warranties, safety regulations, etc, especially for components like batteries.
So in the US for example, I envision a federal organization that’s similar to the FCC that all parts must be approved by in order to be sold. Maybe call it the Federal Sustainability Commission or Federal Consumer Protection Commission or something.
Generally speaking, replacement parts have warranties, too, which helps to maintain a minimum baseline of quality. I can't speak for everyone, but in my industry most repair parts have warranties ranging from 180-365 days.
I would imagine that it depends on the industry and where the parts are sourced from.
A lot of the electronics parts that can be found on Amazon might come with something labeled a warranty, but they’re not worth the paper they’re printed on because they’re made by no name manufacturers and sold by fly-by-night dropshippers, all of which is possible because there are no enforced standards.
That's because we don't hold retailers accountable in the US. Some countries (Australia and at least parts of the EU come to mind) have a mandatory implied warranty that the retailer is on the hook for, requiring replacement or refund for a product that isn't "fit for purpose," up to something like a year from purchase. If you don't want to eat the costs, you don't sell the product that's likely to incur them.
Price isn't always an indication of quality, either. I have Gap t-shirts from goodwill that outlasted several attempts to buy higher quality things which fell apart quickly.
I watched this a couple weeks ago and it's great. I'm not in the tiktok or even twitter sphere at all, so I love watching Cara because her subjects are just entirely new to me as a concept. It's kind of mind blowing that underconsumption is a trend and not just normal behavior, but I suppose if a trend is what people need to stop wasting money on dumb stuff, then I'm all for it!
Personally, I was absolutely caught up in overconsuming for the last few years. I went from making $45k a year to $120k a year and lifestyle creep hit me hard. In the last year or so I've gone through a lot of effort to cut down on consumption, save more money, and take more time buying stuff that I do think I need (cuz sometimes it turns out I don't and I forget about it after 2 weeks). It's helped a ton now that I'm entirely off reddit except for some sports and game subreddits (hobby subreddits there were killing my wallet as you always feel like you need to buy and upgrade everything due to community pressure).
Anyways, Cara's channel is great and she does a good job of shining a spotlight into some areas many people probably don't think too much about. I've had to reflect quite a bit after I started watching her.
Glad to see Cara being mentioned here. It's a nice fit for Tildes :) Aubrey Plaza's less crazy twin :D
Thanks for introducing me to her! And yeah I thought especially this one fit tildes really well - and I can totally see the resemblance and similarities between them lol!
Thank you for introducing me to her!
All credit to @X08!
Nope, you gotta take this credit 🫡
All credit to Cara for creating her videos tbf :P I'm just a insert random self-downplaying comment
Anecdotally, myself and my other gen Z friends participate in a lot of this both because it's practical and because our purchasing power is so garbage we don't have a choice.
We should credit The Oatmeal: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/sell_generation
Incidentally, I remember this comic differently, where it was a few panels on the appropriate way to sell, with pictures of device in a salesperson's hand. I must have skipped universes again.
In the way olden days, quality useful advertising was fun and informative. https://beagle.applearchives.com/catalogs/
I'm not sure there really was an age of "quality advertising". Sure, it was different in the past, but there was a lot of really toxic advertisements as well. I remember in one of my high school libraries they had printed archive copies of a homemaking magazine (I think Better Homes and Gardens), and the advertisements could get really negative. They ranged between "buy a vaccuum and have more time to take care of baby!" to "You'll never get a man if you can't make good coffee (and you can't make good coffee with the other guys)!" Those kinds of messages tend to be glossed over because of the purity aesthetic common to them.
Oh sure, advertising has always been problematic. Ralph Nader and Vance Packard and Justice Brandeis would all have a lot to say about it. But it wasn't all bad all the time.