Skip Navigation
Economics @lemmy.world
MicroWave @lemmy.world

Americans are holding onto devices longer than ever and it’s costing the economy

The average American now holds onto their smartphone for 29 months, according to a recent survey by Reviews.org, and that cycle is getting longer. The average was around 22 months in 2016.

While squeezing as much life out of your device as possible may save money in the short run, especially amid widespread fears about the strength of the consumer and job market, it might cost the economy in the long run, especially when device hoarding occurs at the level of corporations. 

Research released by the Federal Reserve last month concludes that each additional year companies delay upgrading equipment results in a productivity decline of about one-third of a percent, with investment patterns accounting for approximately 55% of productivity gaps between advanced economies. The good news: businesses in the U.S. are generally quicker to reinvest in replacing aging equipment. The Federal Reserve report shows that if European productivity had matched U.S. investment patterns starting in 2000, the productivity gap between the U.S and European economic heavyweights would have been reduced by 29 percent for the U.K., 35 percent for France, and 101% for Germany.

News @lemmy.world

Americans are holding onto devices longer than ever and it’s costing the economy

267 164
Hacker News @lemmy.bestiver.se

Americans are holding onto devices longer than ever and it's costing the economy

24 11
122 comments
  • Me, reading this on my 86 month old phone and feeling like the left's greatest hero for dealing such a mighty blow to capitalism.

  • The issue isn't money, it's the complete and utter lack of innovation on the devices being sold.

    Quality is another issue. I was forced to buy a new phone, and ended up with a OnePlus. The software is so broken that I can no longer use my launcher I've used for a decade now. The home button glitches out when I do.

  • Zero people really need a new phone every two years, that's crazy. This economy and sadly a lot of jobs are based on some wild idea of endless consumption which is just not sustainable, especially when your customer base is getting poorer by the day.

  • The law of diminishing returns has entered the chat.

    My internet service provider, for example, offered 500 MBPS and recently came out with a plan that was $20 per month cheaper and only offered 100 MBPS and I jumped on it as fast as I possibly could because I don't need 500 MBPS ever.

  • Many workers report that aging devices stifle productivity, but like a favorite pair of shoes or an old sweater, they don’t want to give them up to learn the intricacies of a new device (which they’ll learn and then have to replace with another). Familiarity can trump productivity for many workers.

    So first off I'm glad they mentioned this. However it's frustrating to see the first quote, "last month concludes that each additional year companies delay upgrading equipment results in a productivity decline of about one-third of a percent" which feels like real numbers versus the section I quoted which feel like vibes.

    There is a cost in doing something and a cost in not doing something. Sometimes doing nothing is the best course of action.

    (Now if getting a new device is a huge cost you should investigate where you can improve that process.)

  • Good. Better for your pocketbook, better for yourself, and better for the world.

    I would like to note that the difference in relative purchases of technology investments between consumer and business markets will make comparison a little less than easy.

    That and certain social demographics within the information technology world present a bleed through of practices in spending habits and thus should not be included.

  • The section about buying new phones and the section about company investment appear to have nothing to do with one another.

    The report by the Fed they cite is concerned with estimating the effect of capital reinvestment productivity gains by the firm.

    Just breezing through the report it looks like the Fed is trying to explain differences in GDP between economies as a consequence of capital reinvestment. When firms buy new equipment, which could include IT equipment but also could include things like robots, backhoes, new looms, or any other piece of equipment a firm uses to produce goods or services, they should be more productive because their equipment has newer technology in it. The Fed reasons that if two major economies differ in GDP growth one of the potential explanations might be the rate of capital reinvestment firms in those economies engage in because newer equipment usually increases productivity. So more frequent investments in capital should yield faster growth in GDP. They present evidence in favor of that argument.

    I don't know how reasonable their conclusion is because I am not too familiar with their measurements which are not direct measures of capital investment and don't really know enough about how GDP changes over time to know if this is a good explanation. It is clear, however, that the Fed is not arguing that consumers need to keep buying new phones every year or the economy will collapse or even be harmed. That is not even remotely what the report is about.

122 comments