IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed(goodnewsnetwork.org)
goodnewsnetwork.org
IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/ikea-buys-forest-in-georgia/?
621 comments
This seems a little misleading. 66,000 acres would be 270 sq km, 33% of the country is 22,000 sq km so IKEA owns just over 1% of the forested land.
IKEA is the largest private forester but most of Lithuania's forests are owned by the state [0] and overseen by various state bodies, some of whom operate them as commercial concerns including, almost certainly, selling timber to IKEA.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_in_Lithuania
IKEA is the largest private forester but most of Lithuania's forests are owned by the state [0] and overseen by various state bodies, some of whom operate them as commercial concerns including, almost certainly, selling timber to IKEA.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_in_Lithuania
I don't think he means IKEA owns 33% of the forest. 33% is the total percentage of forest and IKEA is the bigger single owner of forests. Two separate statements.
Sure. But it really means IKEA is the biggest single owner of forests, apart from the owner who owns 40 times as much as IKEA does.
Sure, but including state ownership skews the metrics. Is there any country where the government/state isn't the biggest owner of forests? Applying the same idea to the US puts the US government at the top with 31.1% of forests[1] even though 35.5% is collectively owned by families.
[1] https://www.nwtf.org/conservation/article/who-owns-forests-w...
[1] https://www.nwtf.org/conservation/article/who-owns-forests-w...
I think it is Relevant precisely because skew the metrics When we talk about land-use.If it is left out people can make all kinds of misinformed Conclusions.
For someone who does not know how much is an acre: 66k acres is ~27k hectares or 270sq.km.
> 66k acres is ~27k hectares
That's a strange way to put it.
More obviously, 1 acre ~= 0.4 hectares or ~4000 m²
Alternatively, 1 hectare ~= 2.5 acres
That's a strange way to put it.
More obviously, 1 acre ~= 0.4 hectares or ~4000 m²
Alternatively, 1 hectare ~= 2.5 acres
Lithuania is about 16 million acres, so that would be about 0.4% which is a lot but doesn’t seem too far out of the ordinary.
There are 50,000 and 60,000 acre tracts owned by separate logging companies near me, and that’s a small part of one county in northern California.
Point being that 10,000 acres isn’t actually as much land as it sounds like, when it comes to forest land.
There are 50,000 and 60,000 acre tracts owned by separate logging companies near me, and that’s a small part of one county in northern California.
Point being that 10,000 acres isn’t actually as much land as it sounds like, when it comes to forest land.
Damn, love these little/random facts about my mother country.
Well, if it helps, they're the biggest land (forest?) owner in Romania, too. They own something like 50 000 hectares. It's probably not 1/3rd of Romania, we're a bit bigger :-p
It's none of my business if Ikea wants to buy productive forest land and take it out of production.
However, I don't understand how it is any kind of signal of virtue.
Would it be virtuous to buy productive farm land and take it out of circulation?
How is forest land any different?
In a previous life, it would be broadly correct to say that I worked in the forest industry. My body still hurts when I think about it.
I worked for wood lot owners, felling trees, trimming off the branches, sectioning the logs, splitting the wood and then stacking it to be sold by the cord. These woodlots had been in operation for over 150 years. Same land, different trees. They still operate now.
I also worked as a tree planter, hired by small contractors working for 'big forest'. Us tree planters went in after the heavy equipment had ripped out the trees, tearing the land to shreds in the process. It felt like what ground would have been like after a B-52 strike, an eerie hell scape, but with an explosion of small plants and flowers with new access to the sun, deer and other wildlife roaming free, wondering at the strange human interloper. Sometimes wolves and bears, at which point it felt rather lonely, me with a Swiss Army knife (mostly for the fork) and my nearest crew mate being well outside shouting distance.
The churned up land we were planting had been pulp forest itself for over a hundred years. As I planted, others were taking soil and water samples. To the forest company, the forest was a long term asset and that it thrived was in their interest.
I didn't think about it much then, but others long dead had planted that ground before me. Those foot long trees I planted have long been harvested and new trees planted in their place.
Trees are like wheat, or corn, or quinoa. Except instead of being a once a year crop, trees are once every twenty five years or so.
Otherwise, what's the difference?
However, I don't understand how it is any kind of signal of virtue.
Would it be virtuous to buy productive farm land and take it out of circulation?
How is forest land any different?
In a previous life, it would be broadly correct to say that I worked in the forest industry. My body still hurts when I think about it.
I worked for wood lot owners, felling trees, trimming off the branches, sectioning the logs, splitting the wood and then stacking it to be sold by the cord. These woodlots had been in operation for over 150 years. Same land, different trees. They still operate now.
I also worked as a tree planter, hired by small contractors working for 'big forest'. Us tree planters went in after the heavy equipment had ripped out the trees, tearing the land to shreds in the process. It felt like what ground would have been like after a B-52 strike, an eerie hell scape, but with an explosion of small plants and flowers with new access to the sun, deer and other wildlife roaming free, wondering at the strange human interloper. Sometimes wolves and bears, at which point it felt rather lonely, me with a Swiss Army knife (mostly for the fork) and my nearest crew mate being well outside shouting distance.
The churned up land we were planting had been pulp forest itself for over a hundred years. As I planted, others were taking soil and water samples. To the forest company, the forest was a long term asset and that it thrived was in their interest.
I didn't think about it much then, but others long dead had planted that ground before me. Those foot long trees I planted have long been harvested and new trees planted in their place.
Trees are like wheat, or corn, or quinoa. Except instead of being a once a year crop, trees are once every twenty five years or so.
Otherwise, what's the difference?
I think you're being disingenuous if you're saying you don't know the difference between an old growth forest and a 25 year old monoculture stand of trees which is due to be clear-cut and replanted.
Kind of irrelevant to the article which you're commenting on though because they're not buying productive forest land to take it out of production, they're buying productive forest land to continue managing and harvesting it, rather to keep it from being rezoned and developed.
Kind of irrelevant to the article which you're commenting on though because they're not buying productive forest land to take it out of production, they're buying productive forest land to continue managing and harvesting it, rather to keep it from being rezoned and developed.
The difference in this particular case is that Ikea is not taking productive forest land and taking it out of production. It is taking naturally forested land that is at risk of deforestation that would ostensibly then be used for a monoculture wood farming industry.
If this land was used for timber, it would reduce biodiversity in Georgia. That would unquestionably be a bad outcome for the environment. Deforestation and a reduction in biodiversity is a major problem the world faces, and it impacts much more than just the trees and plants - much of wildlife like animals, insects, and fish are losing their natural habitat and being driven extinct as a result of this practice.
You can hype up timber forestry tactics all you want, but what Ikea has done is a good thing for the world, no matter how disingenuous they might be due to their products consuming large amounts of timber for furniture.
If this land was used for timber, it would reduce biodiversity in Georgia. That would unquestionably be a bad outcome for the environment. Deforestation and a reduction in biodiversity is a major problem the world faces, and it impacts much more than just the trees and plants - much of wildlife like animals, insects, and fish are losing their natural habitat and being driven extinct as a result of this practice.
You can hype up timber forestry tactics all you want, but what Ikea has done is a good thing for the world, no matter how disingenuous they might be due to their products consuming large amounts of timber for furniture.
I take the point. Removing land from the potential to be developed is different from removing land from production.
Not that anyone is saying this directly, but I disagree with the argument that good, productive land left fallow is better than good productive land that is producing.
My brother makes a living and feeds his family based on his wood lot. Traces of original settlers from nearly two hundred years ago are found throughout the forest. Which is to say, it is pretty obvious now that it was not suited for farming.
But as forest, it is wonderful. There are at least six species of viable commercial trees at scale. Maple, oak, cedar, black cherry, pine. Most original species, or those introduced by the original indigenous people or the first settlers. The crab apple trees pop up in strange places.
My brother has a government approved forestry management plan that takes from the forest each year far, far less than what the forest produces. The forest will remain diverse and support a family well, indefinitely.
The trees are coming out in a managed way that is creating trails, with clear evidence that wildlife is making good use of the trails. Across the forest, he has installed a wide assortment of habitat for species at risk, birds, bats and others, several of which had not been seen in the area for generations - and they are being used! Under the managed forest, wildlife is returning in which there is no evidence had been there for at least two generations. This wildlife is moving into the adjacent conservation authority land, not the other way around.
If this was not an owned and managed forest, this would be happening at a much slower rate.
If I had to compare that against a plan that left the land alone, I'd tilt my hand to the one that actually supported people, in harmony with nature.
Not that anyone is saying this directly, but I disagree with the argument that good, productive land left fallow is better than good productive land that is producing.
My brother makes a living and feeds his family based on his wood lot. Traces of original settlers from nearly two hundred years ago are found throughout the forest. Which is to say, it is pretty obvious now that it was not suited for farming.
But as forest, it is wonderful. There are at least six species of viable commercial trees at scale. Maple, oak, cedar, black cherry, pine. Most original species, or those introduced by the original indigenous people or the first settlers. The crab apple trees pop up in strange places.
My brother has a government approved forestry management plan that takes from the forest each year far, far less than what the forest produces. The forest will remain diverse and support a family well, indefinitely.
The trees are coming out in a managed way that is creating trails, with clear evidence that wildlife is making good use of the trails. Across the forest, he has installed a wide assortment of habitat for species at risk, birds, bats and others, several of which had not been seen in the area for generations - and they are being used! Under the managed forest, wildlife is returning in which there is no evidence had been there for at least two generations. This wildlife is moving into the adjacent conservation authority land, not the other way around.
If this was not an owned and managed forest, this would be happening at a much slower rate.
If I had to compare that against a plan that left the land alone, I'd tilt my hand to the one that actually supported people, in harmony with nature.
That sounds pretty awesome, and kudos to your brother and his family for how they are managing the land. But, you must realize what you described is not representative of most commercial timberland. You can see the effects of timber operations via satellite imagery, even quite far zoomed out - see most of western Oregon, for example.
Do you have any more evidence of this? My own experience with East Texas timberland is more representative of the grandparent comment.
What's the overall effect of forests vs farm/crop land? Forests provide homes to lots of animals. Farms do not. Forests help recycle the air. Farms do not. I'm sure there's others, but you get the point. At least, I hope you can honestly see a difference between a forest and farm land and that this is just some sort of mental gymnastics excersising of your devil's advocate muscles.
Wait what? Farms don't recycle the air? Do crops operate without CO2 somehow?
At the same effect as a tree? I'm not a scientist, but I can't imagine an acre of crops having the same effect as an acre of trees. Also, crops are only around for however many months they take to produce their product, then they are harvested, and the ground is tilled under again leaving the land with scratched earth. Trees in a forest keep doing their thing year round.
I'm also ignoring any of the chemicals that farms use on the land, but it is something to also consider.
I'm also ignoring any of the chemicals that farms use on the land, but it is something to also consider.
It's a rather poorly written, biased article, with a typo in the first sentence, but IKEA isn't taking the land/trees out of circulation. They're using the resources while also aligning this move with their other sustainability goals, including on the carbon side.
Not implying that this is corporate propaganda to cater to the US public, but something similar happened to my country where saving the planet is not on the agenda of its citizens since there are other problems that need to be solved first. [1]
"IKEA’s goal is to purchase wood which is 100 per cent FSC-certified from these countries. At the same time there are many indications that forests with high conservation values are being logged by FSC-certified companies. FSC-certification is far from a guarantee for socially- and environmentally friendly forestry and FSC has received serious criticism from many environmental organizations, both in Sweden and internationally. Several environmental organizations have left FSC in protest. " [2]
So practically, you have a situation where IKEA acts on some shady rules established by this FCS that are unreliable. Moreover, countries with corrupt officials will eventually end up in prison but too late, before the harm is done. Generally, if as a Romanian I go outside to protest against IKEA and corrupt politicians exploiting the Carpathians, I'm told that I don't respect private property and that IKEA acts according to the laws of that country (created by corrupt policians with shady lobbies), in the end IKEA becomes the victim.
[1] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ikea-buys-83000-acre-fore... [2] http://skyddaskogen.se/en/news/4852-ikea-s-forest-in-romania...
"IKEA’s goal is to purchase wood which is 100 per cent FSC-certified from these countries. At the same time there are many indications that forests with high conservation values are being logged by FSC-certified companies. FSC-certification is far from a guarantee for socially- and environmentally friendly forestry and FSC has received serious criticism from many environmental organizations, both in Sweden and internationally. Several environmental organizations have left FSC in protest. " [2]
So practically, you have a situation where IKEA acts on some shady rules established by this FCS that are unreliable. Moreover, countries with corrupt officials will eventually end up in prison but too late, before the harm is done. Generally, if as a Romanian I go outside to protest against IKEA and corrupt politicians exploiting the Carpathians, I'm told that I don't respect private property and that IKEA acts according to the laws of that country (created by corrupt policians with shady lobbies), in the end IKEA becomes the victim.
[1] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ikea-buys-83000-acre-fore... [2] http://skyddaskogen.se/en/news/4852-ikea-s-forest-in-romania...
"countries with corrupt officials will eventually end up in prison"
Majority never will, see Navalni exposing theft after theft and ending up in jail himself.
Majority never will, see Navalni exposing theft after theft and ending up in jail himself.
That is indeed a very sad reality in this part of the world. Since the fight against corruption that started with Romania's integration into the EU, things are a little bit better. Politicans are now held accountable but too late. We are mostly reactive instead of preventive.
Scapegoats and targets of witch hunts notwithstanding, nobody goes to jail for doing what is the local norm.
I have a problem with IKEA. Aren't those peaces of furniture made of composite materials and those not so sturdy shelves a sustainability problem when compared to traditional furniture making which is mostly wood glue a protective coat which lasts for hundreds of years can be infinitely repaired in a workshop with some basic tools. And then it it all ends it can became firewood, which ikea furniture can't.
Shouldn't they start fixing the world there?
Shouldn't they start fixing the world there?
I would say most pieces of furniture sold these days are made of engineered wood [0], if that's what you mean by "composite materials". Aside from easier sourcing, I presume that a big driver of it's use is the fact that it is easier to shape and produce - no having to figure out how it will be assembled using the various sizes of timber available.
The actual solid-wood furniture I have seen is either quite expensive, or (somewhat ironically) unfinished.
All this being said, if you do have the money to spare, spending a bit on quality or better labor practices is good. For example, I bought my bed frame from a company in the UK[1], and was quite happy with the finished product (despite some unfortunate luck with a part of the frame, which I put down to the fact that I ordered during the holidays).
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_wood [1] https://www.getlaidbeds.com/
The actual solid-wood furniture I have seen is either quite expensive, or (somewhat ironically) unfinished.
All this being said, if you do have the money to spare, spending a bit on quality or better labor practices is good. For example, I bought my bed frame from a company in the UK[1], and was quite happy with the finished product (despite some unfortunate luck with a part of the frame, which I put down to the fact that I ordered during the holidays).
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_wood [1] https://www.getlaidbeds.com/
> The actual solid-wood furniture I have seen is either quite expensive, or (somewhat ironically) unfinished.
It's also super heavy, which I personally hate. Annoying to move in, move out, move around.
It's also super heavy, which I personally hate. Annoying to move in, move out, move around.
I have inherited a piece of oak furniture and that was assembled at my grand-aunts flat in situ, with wood glue and moves as a single piece, doors, interior and all. It's about 2,50m wide and 2m high and feels like it weigh a ton. Takes three to four people to move. Every time I move, the folks come in, have a look at that beast and take a break. It's definitely more a piece for people that have settled in one place.
There are cheaper, lighter, and softer but less durable solid wood pieces made of pine and similar woods. They don't feel much heavier than the IKEA manufactured wood furniture I have but at least have a decently satisfying grain if that's what you're going for.
This is so true. I've inherited lots of stuff from grandparents that's amazingly high quality wood -- but it's so heavy I can't even get it into my apartment! My parents once spent a few thousand dollars to ship some furniture from Europe to the USA..
Ikea sells lots of stuff made out of softer solid woods that is probably lighter than the engineered material versions.
Hi. Co-Founder of Get Laid Beds here.
Happy to shed some further insight into the world of wood. You are indeed right about engineered wood being easy to shape & produce. The main driver really is all about cost. The reason IKEA's furniture is so cheap is down to how they've designed it which is also purely automated. Their design process will start with "how cheap can we possibly make this whilst having a structural integrity that will be accepted as satisfactory". Which essentially means, it won't last forever, but long enough for a few years. Which we all know and accept, myself included. You could say they are not environmentaly friendly in this regard, however, that's certainly not fair given their excellent sustainability efforts in other areas, such as aiming to be climate positive by 2030 and having a million solar panels on their store roofs.
"Engineered" wood is both high & low quality product, depending on the use. A glue-laminated beam can be as strong as steel in buildings. Composite cladding on facades of buildings can last for a centuries (tbc as we've not had time to see it degrade yet). But then there's the cheap end of laminated, fibre board, OSB, MDF cardboard filled, etc, which is mimicking wood but is far from it. A simple knock or exposure to moisture will ruin it's aesthetic and structure. There's many different uses for different situations.
So engineered wood can be both expensive and cheap depending on how it's made. It's often made from the recycling of wood or sawdust from other timber processing.
So then we have solid natural wood. There's a good reason it lasts for a long time and that's simply because tree's themselves have evolved to stand tall and strong. There's many types of softwoods and hardwoods which I won't go into. But the additional problem with producing at IKEA scale is not only is it more expensive, there is also the natural element of knots, splits, cupping, etc which deform the wood. We might lose 20% (waste factor) of the wood we buy (as we only make beds with 100% solid wood) because it's simply unusable. Even when the wood meets the structural criteria, it can also visually be very different between the same species because of whatever natural environmental influencers happened to that tree. So the whole process of using solid wood is much more challenging, expensive and time consuming to ensure the quality of the product is consistent. The "consistency" is also key for IKEA. However, the beauty and eco-benefits of natural wood are well worth, as well it lasting almost forever. So it's worth the investment for the long term.
Hope that helps. Jonny
(Thanks for your order btw)
Happy to shed some further insight into the world of wood. You are indeed right about engineered wood being easy to shape & produce. The main driver really is all about cost. The reason IKEA's furniture is so cheap is down to how they've designed it which is also purely automated. Their design process will start with "how cheap can we possibly make this whilst having a structural integrity that will be accepted as satisfactory". Which essentially means, it won't last forever, but long enough for a few years. Which we all know and accept, myself included. You could say they are not environmentaly friendly in this regard, however, that's certainly not fair given their excellent sustainability efforts in other areas, such as aiming to be climate positive by 2030 and having a million solar panels on their store roofs.
"Engineered" wood is both high & low quality product, depending on the use. A glue-laminated beam can be as strong as steel in buildings. Composite cladding on facades of buildings can last for a centuries (tbc as we've not had time to see it degrade yet). But then there's the cheap end of laminated, fibre board, OSB, MDF cardboard filled, etc, which is mimicking wood but is far from it. A simple knock or exposure to moisture will ruin it's aesthetic and structure. There's many different uses for different situations.
So engineered wood can be both expensive and cheap depending on how it's made. It's often made from the recycling of wood or sawdust from other timber processing.
So then we have solid natural wood. There's a good reason it lasts for a long time and that's simply because tree's themselves have evolved to stand tall and strong. There's many types of softwoods and hardwoods which I won't go into. But the additional problem with producing at IKEA scale is not only is it more expensive, there is also the natural element of knots, splits, cupping, etc which deform the wood. We might lose 20% (waste factor) of the wood we buy (as we only make beds with 100% solid wood) because it's simply unusable. Even when the wood meets the structural criteria, it can also visually be very different between the same species because of whatever natural environmental influencers happened to that tree. So the whole process of using solid wood is much more challenging, expensive and time consuming to ensure the quality of the product is consistent. The "consistency" is also key for IKEA. However, the beauty and eco-benefits of natural wood are well worth, as well it lasting almost forever. So it's worth the investment for the long term.
Hope that helps. Jonny
(Thanks for your order btw)
I think making things in the way that minimises the impact at production time is the most important thing right now. Population growth is still a thing. Many people are buying furniture for the first time. If you start using hardwood for all furniture it could easily be devastating to the worlds forests.
> And then it it all ends it can became firewood, which ikea furniture can't.
Of course it can. You wouldn't burn it in a fireplace, but then fireplace is very inefficent way to burn things anyway. If you burn it in a trash burning facilities like they have in Sweden, you get the most energy out of it, you can heat local homes with waste heat in winter, and it creates less pollution (fire places are being banned in dense urban areas where I'm from). It's a fairly good solution for the seasonal energy demand in northern areas.
I personally think IKEAs approach is realistically the most sustainable, but they could improve it by improving the recycling/reuse of the wood fibers in their products.
I've used and refurbished old solid wood furniture myself. It's a luxury IMO. There's not that much of it to go around. It doesn't scale. It's not a solution to the worlds problem.
I also think the quality issues of IKEA furniture is exaggerated. I have a cheap TV table I bought as a student 15 years ago. It has been moved around several times. Seen a lot of abuse. I didn't really have a use for it in our new home so I've used it as a tool table while renovating. It still looks fine. A tiny bit bent, but still good. Can probably give it to another student to use.
If you want to say that buying long-lasting furniture is significantly better, I think you need to point to a study showing how many resources each approach uses, and the average life-span in the real-world. It's far from obvious that solid furniture is better.
> And then it it all ends it can became firewood, which ikea furniture can't.
Of course it can. You wouldn't burn it in a fireplace, but then fireplace is very inefficent way to burn things anyway. If you burn it in a trash burning facilities like they have in Sweden, you get the most energy out of it, you can heat local homes with waste heat in winter, and it creates less pollution (fire places are being banned in dense urban areas where I'm from). It's a fairly good solution for the seasonal energy demand in northern areas.
I personally think IKEAs approach is realistically the most sustainable, but they could improve it by improving the recycling/reuse of the wood fibers in their products.
I've used and refurbished old solid wood furniture myself. It's a luxury IMO. There's not that much of it to go around. It doesn't scale. It's not a solution to the worlds problem.
I also think the quality issues of IKEA furniture is exaggerated. I have a cheap TV table I bought as a student 15 years ago. It has been moved around several times. Seen a lot of abuse. I didn't really have a use for it in our new home so I've used it as a tool table while renovating. It still looks fine. A tiny bit bent, but still good. Can probably give it to another student to use.
If you want to say that buying long-lasting furniture is significantly better, I think you need to point to a study showing how many resources each approach uses, and the average life-span in the real-world. It's far from obvious that solid furniture is better.
There seems to be a misconception that Ikea is all cheap composite. It's really not true, they cover a wide range, and they have full-wood models for nearly all product categories
Obviously most people buy the cheap stuff, but that's the case of any low/medium end furniture chain really
Obviously most people buy the cheap stuff, but that's the case of any low/medium end furniture chain really
Yes, indeed, Ikea furniture covers a wide range.
For example, my most recent purchase from Ikea was one year ago, when I bought a couple of tables made of steel, on which I keep some E-ATX computer cases.
Those steel tables look like they should last more than a human lifetime.
For example, my most recent purchase from Ikea was one year ago, when I bought a couple of tables made of steel, on which I keep some E-ATX computer cases.
Those steel tables look like they should last more than a human lifetime.
They have pieces that aren’t particle board. These pieces are the lowest quality pine they could find. It’s super soft so it’s very easy to put a dent in and it’s not particularly well protected either so you end up throwing it away after a while as well. Maybe not as soon as the particle board junk but not much later either.
Ikea used to be well made and decent quality 20 years ago. It all went downhill from there and now most of their furniture gets damaged by just looking at it.
Ikea used to be well made and decent quality 20 years ago. It all went downhill from there and now most of their furniture gets damaged by just looking at it.
It's literally glued together "scrap" wood - which can work fine - but it is also susceptible to "drying" damage - I have a Hermes shelf that is more like a U than a _ now.
> Aren't those peaces of furniture made of composite materials and those not so sturdy shelves.
I'd gladly invite to my study, which is decorated using IKEA Galant (office) furniture. Every item in the set is high density wood composite and tables are built upon steel structures. They would outlast my children easily if they're not abused on purpose.
Or my Kitchen, which is again built by IKEA with high density composite and its workmanship made a good carpenter jealous.
If you want top of the line items in a category, look for "Stockholm" series.
I'd gladly invite to my study, which is decorated using IKEA Galant (office) furniture. Every item in the set is high density wood composite and tables are built upon steel structures. They would outlast my children easily if they're not abused on purpose.
Or my Kitchen, which is again built by IKEA with high density composite and its workmanship made a good carpenter jealous.
If you want top of the line items in a category, look for "Stockholm" series.
"If not abused on purpose" is the problem - things DO get abused and once engineered wood products start to degrade there's no stopping it.
And if water gets in and doesn't get removed immediately you're in for a world of excitement.
Given that kitchens are remodeled every 7-10 years "on average" paying for solid wood/plywood might not be worth it. But there's a reason commercial kitchens are stainless steel.
And if water gets in and doesn't get removed immediately you're in for a world of excitement.
Given that kitchens are remodeled every 7-10 years "on average" paying for solid wood/plywood might not be worth it. But there's a reason commercial kitchens are stainless steel.
Galant is not "engineered" per se. It's so dense that you can drive screws to anywhere on it. It behaves like drywall.
> And if water gets in and doesn't get removed immediately you're in for a world of excitement.
On higher end IKEA furniture there's no hex structure inside. It's filled. Solid. There's no inside.
My kitchen is 8 years old and it has a solid wood counter. I re-oil it occasionally but, there's no degradation whatsoever. It's guaranteed for 25 years so, it's not something flimsy. Again panels and cabinets are not hollow. There's no inside of these cabinets.
> And if water gets in and doesn't get removed immediately you're in for a world of excitement.
On higher end IKEA furniture there's no hex structure inside. It's filled. Solid. There's no inside.
My kitchen is 8 years old and it has a solid wood counter. I re-oil it occasionally but, there's no degradation whatsoever. It's guaranteed for 25 years so, it's not something flimsy. Again panels and cabinets are not hollow. There's no inside of these cabinets.
The "inside" refers to the material between the veneer layers - as you find with particle board or MDF: https://gharpedia.com/blog/particle-board-vs-mdf/
It sounds like Galant may be MDF which is more durable but still experiences expansion when wet.
The countertop is solid wood to help prevent that type of damage - and as long as you maintain the plumbing it should last quite awhile.
It sounds like Galant may be MDF which is more durable but still experiences expansion when wet.
The countertop is solid wood to help prevent that type of damage - and as long as you maintain the plumbing it should last quite awhile.
Galant is much denser than MDF. It's like a monolithic slab. It's way smoother and has finer grain than standard MDF.
For the table tops, IKEA's Professional Office Buying Guide quotes:
"Tested for tough treatment: The BEKANT desk series have been tested according to the highest standards for professional office use (EN 527, ANSI/BIFMA X:5.5 for desks and EN14074, EN1730 and ANSI/BIFMA X:5.5 for conference tables) and meets our strict standards for quality and durability."
Galant's table tops are rebranded BEKANT recently, however it's the same stuff AFAIK.
The buying guide is here: https://cdn.ikea.com.tr/buying-guides/Professional_office_bg...
For the table tops, IKEA's Professional Office Buying Guide quotes:
"Tested for tough treatment: The BEKANT desk series have been tested according to the highest standards for professional office use (EN 527, ANSI/BIFMA X:5.5 for desks and EN14074, EN1730 and ANSI/BIFMA X:5.5 for conference tables) and meets our strict standards for quality and durability."
Galant's table tops are rebranded BEKANT recently, however it's the same stuff AFAIK.
The buying guide is here: https://cdn.ikea.com.tr/buying-guides/Professional_office_bg...
I have a Bekant desk and I quite like it. Doesn't feel cheap at all to me. I think I paid around $250 for it.
I have right in front of me a 20+-year-old Ivar shelving unit which is in its 4th (for some shelves maybe even 5th) location and second country. It still seems pretty stable, although the slides on the Ivar keyboard tray sticks before the tray is fully extended (not a problem, the exposed area gives full access to the keyboard).
Looking at the wood, I suspect it's spruce or pine, with visible joins in the shelving uprights, as well as in the shelves themselves.
Looking at the wood, I suspect it's spruce or pine, with visible joins in the shelving uprights, as well as in the shelves themselves.
I have lots of Ikea furniture, I also have some "real"
In terms of longevity, I don't see that much of a difference. They both require basic care and maintenance to keep in one piece.
People throw away furniture, regardless of who/how its made. Thats the issue we need to tackle.
In terms of longevity, I don't see that much of a difference. They both require basic care and maintenance to keep in one piece.
People throw away furniture, regardless of who/how its made. Thats the issue we need to tackle.
A thing I've noticed is that even if built from real wood most chairs are NOT designed to hold the average American - who has grown in leaps and bounds since the 1800s - and once they start to loosen at the joints there's no real saving them.
Yeah, that cheap composite wood is use once and dump. It can’t even survive a move sometimes.
But is it a sustainability problem? No. In fact if I can recycle wood destined for the furnace into engineered wood, it’s better. If I can recycle engineered wood to become engineered wood again, it’s better.
The other benefit of real wood you mention (restoring and finish) happens less in the western world. Here they dump and move on. Sadly.
But is it a sustainability problem? No. In fact if I can recycle wood destined for the furnace into engineered wood, it’s better. If I can recycle engineered wood to become engineered wood again, it’s better.
The other benefit of real wood you mention (restoring and finish) happens less in the western world. Here they dump and move on. Sadly.
I've moved my Ikea bedframe at least 4 times now. Including once cross-country. Same with a desk and a couple of bookshelves. Seems to last long enough if you use it as intended.
My ikea side tables were £4 each (called Lack I think, about 5 and a half usa dollars), I could not afford anything more expensive at the time. If you can get me two side tables made from solid wood that last for hundreds of years for less than £10 then I would 100% choose those over the Lacks. In fact at the time, I'd have gone up to £20 or £25 if I knew they were that good quality.
Some of their stuff is indeed composite - cardboard honeycomb structure with thin veneer on top. Others are more sturdy. Pretty much everything they sell will have a low impact on the environment when they reach end of life though.
Anyway, stop buying their $5 tables and get something a bit more sturdy.
Anyway, stop buying their $5 tables and get something a bit more sturdy.
Why can't IKEA furniture be used as firewood?
Particleboard is held together with glue, and the paint and glues probably aren't the best thing to breathe when they burn.
How much would buying all the Brazilian rain forest cost the world, or even renting it from Brazil? We would need it to be slightly more than cattle farming to work... but I’d happily pay towards this.
Buying rain forest would mean nothing for illegal rare wood markets, or illegal gold mining, or illegal forest fires to stretch cattle grazing area.
Most people grossly underestimate how wild and pretty much lawless inland rain-forest regions are in the Brazilian state of Amazonas. There are small pockets of settlements everywhere but except for Manaus there is very sparse infrastructure, Police will take days to get somewhere by boat, Healthcare deep in the forest is pretty much a death sentence if you happen to need urgent critical care. You have people that have never been registered with social security, etc.
My point is that having a piece of paper saying that a specific rosewood tree belongs to IKEA or <NGO> would mean nothing, by the time you try to enforce this, the tree would have been fellen, cut, and shipped on a boat to the highest bidder.
If you want actual change in the region you need to develop the local economy with jobs that allow these people to be productive in a way that is somehow more profitable than the existing illegal activities. But the practicalities of this are much harder to implement then simply blank buying forest land.
Most people grossly underestimate how wild and pretty much lawless inland rain-forest regions are in the Brazilian state of Amazonas. There are small pockets of settlements everywhere but except for Manaus there is very sparse infrastructure, Police will take days to get somewhere by boat, Healthcare deep in the forest is pretty much a death sentence if you happen to need urgent critical care. You have people that have never been registered with social security, etc.
My point is that having a piece of paper saying that a specific rosewood tree belongs to IKEA or <NGO> would mean nothing, by the time you try to enforce this, the tree would have been fellen, cut, and shipped on a boat to the highest bidder.
If you want actual change in the region you need to develop the local economy with jobs that allow these people to be productive in a way that is somehow more profitable than the existing illegal activities. But the practicalities of this are much harder to implement then simply blank buying forest land.
> by the time you try to enforce this, the tree would have been fellen, cut, and shipped on a boat to the highest bidder.
That could be true, but only holds for one tree (or a small number of trees). The problem starts when people build a business around trees. By the time their businesses are fully operational you can enforce laws. And this makes it unattractive to even start in this line of business.
That could be true, but only holds for one tree (or a small number of trees). The problem starts when people build a business around trees. By the time their businesses are fully operational you can enforce laws. And this makes it unattractive to even start in this line of business.
You have entire gold mining illegal operations with heavy machinery deep in the forest without any law enforcement to halt them. Murder of indigenous locals in clashes with illegal miners is also not uncommon. Similarly to coca farming in Colombia they simply relocate to another unknown location periodically.
Even assuming good faith from Brazilian law enforcement/military the remoteness and shear size of the rain forest makes it a huge challenge to enforce any rule of Law.
Even assuming good faith from Brazilian law enforcement/military the remoteness and shear size of the rain forest makes it a huge challenge to enforce any rule of Law.
It seems there is some hope:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145988/tracking-ama...
> A (...) satellite-based system, DETER, went into operation in 2004 (...)
> “DETER completely changed the way rangers went about enforcement work,” said Rajão. Rather than doing random patrols and checking for permits, rangers would send squads of enforcement officers — with satellite images in hand — to investigate areas of recent, suspicious activity. That made it much easier to remove or apprehend equipment. The word spread among deforesters. The existence of DETER meant that environmental authorities would likely notice if large tracts of land were cleared, and fines and agents would follow soon enough.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145988/tracking-ama...
> A (...) satellite-based system, DETER, went into operation in 2004 (...)
> “DETER completely changed the way rangers went about enforcement work,” said Rajão. Rather than doing random patrols and checking for permits, rangers would send squads of enforcement officers — with satellite images in hand — to investigate areas of recent, suspicious activity. That made it much easier to remove or apprehend equipment. The word spread among deforesters. The existence of DETER meant that environmental authorities would likely notice if large tracts of land were cleared, and fines and agents would follow soon enough.
You don’t necessarily need to enforcement at the whole region but at the perimeter where heavy machinery and cargo need to pass to reach customers. But since this comes with a big cost still UN should help out with enforcing such laws.
Pretty sure most would support repurposing Tomahawk missiles and MQ-9 Reapers for the protection of the Amazon.
I'm not sure that firing missiles into forests is the most intelligent use of resources...
Why not? You'd likely not need IraqWarII levels of commitment - just a few enthusiastically-delivered missives at 1100kph to get the message across. A few loitering drones and a few dozen more missiles might actually be a highly efficient use of resources. I'm not sure where 'intelligence' comes into play here, beyond condescension of an idea you evidently disagree with.
Apologies I didn't mean to be derogatory. I was just a little bit surprised at the bravado-military mentality that surfaced on a tech forum. To clarify, there are so many issues here I don't even know where to begin, just some quickies off the top of my head:
- the most obvious was mentioned already: forest fires, when missiles explode in a forest you are trying to protect, things tend to burn and fire tends to spread i.e. there might be little forest left to save after you're doing killing everyone who has bad intentions.
- where do you even set these up that they arrive on time to actually hit moving targets?
- how do you ensure you don't kill innocents?
- how do you even _find_ nefarious actors, when forest canopy makes it very hard to find anything, not to mention the Amazon forest is mind-numbingly huge.
- AFAIK the military generally has an inventory of weapons they have to keep stockpiled, so the tax-payer will pay for extremely expensive weapons to be used and built again (great if you want to support military-industrial complex).
As stated elsewhere, the issue is deeper and not addressable by blowing people up. The people doing this have nothing to lose because they have little or no opportunities for making money, so they take any job they can find. Do you believe we should just murder people who make questionable decisions based on their survival? You and I are sitting comfortably behind a computer having this discussion and I would venture that neither are us are qualified to talk about what it's like to be that close to starving.
- the most obvious was mentioned already: forest fires, when missiles explode in a forest you are trying to protect, things tend to burn and fire tends to spread i.e. there might be little forest left to save after you're doing killing everyone who has bad intentions.
- where do you even set these up that they arrive on time to actually hit moving targets?
- how do you ensure you don't kill innocents?
- how do you even _find_ nefarious actors, when forest canopy makes it very hard to find anything, not to mention the Amazon forest is mind-numbingly huge.
- AFAIK the military generally has an inventory of weapons they have to keep stockpiled, so the tax-payer will pay for extremely expensive weapons to be used and built again (great if you want to support military-industrial complex).
As stated elsewhere, the issue is deeper and not addressable by blowing people up. The people doing this have nothing to lose because they have little or no opportunities for making money, so they take any job they can find. Do you believe we should just murder people who make questionable decisions based on their survival? You and I are sitting comfortably behind a computer having this discussion and I would venture that neither are us are qualified to talk about what it's like to be that close to starving.
It was mostly tongue in cheek but it would be interesting to see how the public reacts to such a declaration. If actually implemented I am fairly confident that countermeasures could be taken to avoid casualties and collateral damage, but historically those things get pretty slippery over time.
I suspect public reaction would depend on how media decides to spin it:
- poor starving people just trying to feed their families and in order to survive, will take any job and are being exploited to this end by <cartels/greedy corporations/etc>
or
- dirty scumbags killing innocent animals and cutting down swathes of protected forest just to make a quick buck
or any other narrative that sells clicks, not to say all media is corrupt/greedy, but it sure seems like most public reactions are based on media narratives.
- poor starving people just trying to feed their families and in order to survive, will take any job and are being exploited to this end by <cartels/greedy corporations/etc>
or
- dirty scumbags killing innocent animals and cutting down swathes of protected forest just to make a quick buck
or any other narrative that sells clicks, not to say all media is corrupt/greedy, but it sure seems like most public reactions are based on media narratives.
Yeah, my apologies - I too was being slightly tongue in cheek.
That said, if you entirely removed morality from the equation, I suspect it would actually be an efficient use of resources, to 'surgically' target varying levels of unwanted enterprise to make a somewhat dissuasive point.
That said, if you entirely removed morality from the equation, I suspect it would actually be an efficient use of resources, to 'surgically' target varying levels of unwanted enterprise to make a somewhat dissuasive point.
Well, causing a forest fire with a missile is one thing we should avoid.
Why then, just use kinetic/fragmentary projectiles - easy peasy!
You just time the operation to minimize risk of wildfires, which is already pretty low in a rainforest.
The only challenge I see is that the folks running the saws and the skidders aren't the ones profiting from the operation. So maybe you take some extra precautions to avoid killing the crew, but destroying the equipment seems like a perfectly acceptable use of resources.
The only challenge I see is that the folks running the saws and the skidders aren't the ones profiting from the operation. So maybe you take some extra precautions to avoid killing the crew, but destroying the equipment seems like a perfectly acceptable use of resources.
> You just time the operation to minimize risk of wildfires, which is already pretty low in a rainforest.
You seem misguided, rainforest is not equivalent to high humidity or rain all year round, you absolutely have wildfires and it is not a 'pretty low' risk. [0]
Also most of these operations are lead by organized crime and explore poor people in their day-to-day operations. Killing desperate and poor people that work on these illegal operations seems like a very disproportionate colateral for anyone that cares about upholding rule of Law, or you know just general ethics.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Amazon_rainforest_wildfir...
You seem misguided, rainforest is not equivalent to high humidity or rain all year round, you absolutely have wildfires and it is not a 'pretty low' risk. [0]
Also most of these operations are lead by organized crime and explore poor people in their day-to-day operations. Killing desperate and poor people that work on these illegal operations seems like a very disproportionate colateral for anyone that cares about upholding rule of Law, or you know just general ethics.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Amazon_rainforest_wildfir...
well, in first place Brazil (or Peru, Suriname, etc) should be wanting to sell or rent it. Which they aren't. Second, it won't help to buy or rent it if there is no control in the region. Third, Europe together with China are the biggest market of illegal wood. France has a high military presence on the French Guyana, and they could definitely pass intelligence to some navy to catch the boats leaving Brazil/Suriname towards Europe. So it's not matter of who owns it but if all nations actually want to fight the black market around illegal wood and biopiracy, which they clearly don't want.
References:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-biopiracy/brazil-t...
https://www.dw.com/en/wood-laundering-brings-illegal-amazon-...
http://www.globaltimber.org.uk/ChinaIllegalImpExp.htm
References:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-biopiracy/brazil-t...
https://www.dw.com/en/wood-laundering-brings-illegal-amazon-...
http://www.globaltimber.org.uk/ChinaIllegalImpExp.htm
I remember when I served in the region, we did some exercises together with the 3rd regiment of the French Legion, and they had even a sea operation force that could definitely work on that if Macron could do more than Virtue Signaling on Twitter about this matter
Reference:
https://twitter.com/emmanuelmacron/status/116461700896252723...
Reference:
https://twitter.com/emmanuelmacron/status/116461700896252723...
Everyone has a price... it’d just be interesting to calculate the total cost of purchasing and enforcement. Probably into the tens of billions per year? More? Once there is a figure people might think it’s worth doing or not.
I read an article commenting on "microlending", which came to the conclusion that the concept doesn't really work. Your loan of $3.50 might really mean something to the peasant who receives it. But it means nothing to you, and so microloans end up with no one vetting the borrower for creditworthiness or hassling them to collect. This incentive mismatch ends up spoiling the project; there's no reason for someone not to take out a microloan, drink the money away, and default.
There's a similar problem with your idea. You could buy a stretch of land in Brazil and bask in the glow of taking it off the market. But the problem you perceive with overuse of the Brazilian rainforest wouldn't be solved; that land was mostly not on the market anyway. How would you stop farmers from encroaching on your land? A "No Trespassing" sign won't do the job.
Buying land to prevent development will work better in the US, mostly because there's no one in the US who lives off the land. You can't stop small farmers from moving on to your unsupervised land. But you can easily stop giant logging or mining companies from doing it.
There's a similar problem with your idea. You could buy a stretch of land in Brazil and bask in the glow of taking it off the market. But the problem you perceive with overuse of the Brazilian rainforest wouldn't be solved; that land was mostly not on the market anyway. How would you stop farmers from encroaching on your land? A "No Trespassing" sign won't do the job.
Buying land to prevent development will work better in the US, mostly because there's no one in the US who lives off the land. You can't stop small farmers from moving on to your unsupervised land. But you can easily stop giant logging or mining companies from doing it.
I have about usd 100 rotating in different micro loans through https://www.kiva.org/
In 11 years only one loan has defaulted.
Over the last ~10 years, I've put around 800$ into Kiva. From that, 188 loans for a total value of 5000$ were made.
A bit more than 300$ went into Kiva donations (you can choose for every loan, to cover administrative costs). 20$ went to currency losses. 80$ went to default losses.
The default losses are 10% of what I put in, or 1.6% of the total amount lent. And I explicitly chose a few loans that were explicitly marked as high-default-risk, because of the social situation of the recipients or due to the political/economic situation in the region.
I cannot confirm that my money dried up in default losses. I still think it's quite a good model (but I haven't followed economic research about microloans in the last few years).
Edit: I grew up in the amazon region, parents worked in an NGO. Giving people gifts/donations is worthless to most, since something gifted feels like it has no value. If you build a water well for free, it will be broken in a few months to years. If you make the village pay a part of the costs on the other hand, and if they must help building it, they'll value it more and keep care of it. It's a cultural thing. I could imagine that loans work the same way: You don't get a donation, you'll get a loan that you have to work for. In that culture, it will be valued more. (Of course, that applies to the region I grew up in, I don't want to over-generalize.)
A bit more than 300$ went into Kiva donations (you can choose for every loan, to cover administrative costs). 20$ went to currency losses. 80$ went to default losses.
The default losses are 10% of what I put in, or 1.6% of the total amount lent. And I explicitly chose a few loans that were explicitly marked as high-default-risk, because of the social situation of the recipients or due to the political/economic situation in the region.
I cannot confirm that my money dried up in default losses. I still think it's quite a good model (but I haven't followed economic research about microloans in the last few years).
Edit: I grew up in the amazon region, parents worked in an NGO. Giving people gifts/donations is worthless to most, since something gifted feels like it has no value. If you build a water well for free, it will be broken in a few months to years. If you make the village pay a part of the costs on the other hand, and if they must help building it, they'll value it more and keep care of it. It's a cultural thing. I could imagine that loans work the same way: You don't get a donation, you'll get a loan that you have to work for. In that culture, it will be valued more. (Of course, that applies to the region I grew up in, I don't want to over-generalize.)
How many loans is that? I take it when one comes back you just make another loan?
Yes, I do the same, only on https://www.zidisha.org/
100 dollars have been used for 500+ loans, the last 8 years or so. While you can pick the recipients yourselves, I've opted for automatic re-lending on the platform.
100 dollars have been used for 500+ loans, the last 8 years or so. While you can pick the recipients yourselves, I've opted for automatic re-lending on the platform.
But they weren't suggesting individual purchases. A very large group doing a very large purchase can buy cost-effective security.
> A very large group doing a very large purchase can buy cost-effective security.
That really depends on how much they want the security. People defend territory all the time. It's very, very expensive to do that -- have a look at some city walls -- but it's cost-effective because they are using the territory.
But no, no matter how large the group, they cannot buy cost-effective security for their giant stretch of wilderness if their plan for it is "don't use it" and there are other people who do have a use for it. Compare American government efforts to stop people from using land to grow marijuana. Is the problem that the American government just isn't big enough?
That really depends on how much they want the security. People defend territory all the time. It's very, very expensive to do that -- have a look at some city walls -- but it's cost-effective because they are using the territory.
But no, no matter how large the group, they cannot buy cost-effective security for their giant stretch of wilderness if their plan for it is "don't use it" and there are other people who do have a use for it. Compare American government efforts to stop people from using land to grow marijuana. Is the problem that the American government just isn't big enough?
> Compare American government efforts to stop people from using land to grow marijuana. Is the problem that the American government just isn't big enough?
People are generally doing that in areas where people are allowed. Also the government has a stupendously large amount of land that it didn't pay for and a low budget for keeping anyone out.
It's different if this is land you're purchasing in the modern age. If you're buying a million acres for over a hundred million dollars, then that's about 150 miles of border to patrol. If you hire 150 people for that, at above-median wages, that's 3 million a year. Add some overhead, some expense for equipment and buildings, it's affordable enough compared to the purchase price. If that's too expensive then go up to 10 million acres, which triples the land area per mile of border. Or 100 million acres.
People are generally doing that in areas where people are allowed. Also the government has a stupendously large amount of land that it didn't pay for and a low budget for keeping anyone out.
It's different if this is land you're purchasing in the modern age. If you're buying a million acres for over a hundred million dollars, then that's about 150 miles of border to patrol. If you hire 150 people for that, at above-median wages, that's 3 million a year. Add some overhead, some expense for equipment and buildings, it's affordable enough compared to the purchase price. If that's too expensive then go up to 10 million acres, which triples the land area per mile of border. Or 100 million acres.
> If you're buying a million acres for over a hundred million dollars, then that's about 150 miles of border to patrol.
> If that's too expensive then go up to 10 million acres, which triples the land area per mile of border. Or 100 million acres.
I don't really follow. The use case is that you want to prevent small farmers from encroaching on the jungle. This will only ever happen at the border between where the small farmers end and the jungle begins. If you buy land behind the border, that's nothing but a waste of your money (until the border is so thoroughly dejungled that your old hinterlands is the new border).
In turn, this means that all of the land you're interested in is border. You can't rely on the fact that a circle has a high ratio of area to perimeter to claim cost-efficiency, because you're structurally constrained to owning maximally cost-inefficient strip shapes.
> If that's too expensive then go up to 10 million acres, which triples the land area per mile of border. Or 100 million acres.
I don't really follow. The use case is that you want to prevent small farmers from encroaching on the jungle. This will only ever happen at the border between where the small farmers end and the jungle begins. If you buy land behind the border, that's nothing but a waste of your money (until the border is so thoroughly dejungled that your old hinterlands is the new border).
In turn, this means that all of the land you're interested in is border. You can't rely on the fact that a circle has a high ratio of area to perimeter to claim cost-efficiency, because you're structurally constrained to owning maximally cost-inefficient strip shapes.
Doesn't that risk someone buying the land behind your strip and developing it?
But assuming your scenario is the right one:
Buying only the border land is a strict improvement in efficiency over my plan. Instead of paying X million for land and Y million for security to protect a huge swath of rainforest, you only have to pay X/50 for land and Y million for security. Who cares about what percent goes to what, you're saving tons of rainforest for even less money.
In the extreme you might realize you don't even need to buy any land, you're just paying for security to protect the rainforest. Instead of paying 100 billion to own and never visit, you pay 1 billion a year to protect land you don't own. Which... sounds fine to me!
But assuming your scenario is the right one:
Buying only the border land is a strict improvement in efficiency over my plan. Instead of paying X million for land and Y million for security to protect a huge swath of rainforest, you only have to pay X/50 for land and Y million for security. Who cares about what percent goes to what, you're saving tons of rainforest for even less money.
In the extreme you might realize you don't even need to buy any land, you're just paying for security to protect the rainforest. Instead of paying 100 billion to own and never visit, you pay 1 billion a year to protect land you don't own. Which... sounds fine to me!
If the area is large enough, they could actually make a literal border around it, and use change detection via satellites to notice potential settlements/activity on the inside.
You probably need a watch tower about every 1~2 km, or even less if you'd use a strip of minefield to protect against hordes.
You probably need a watch tower about every 1~2 km, or even less if you'd use a strip of minefield to protect against hordes.
You wouldn't just need to buy them, you'd also need to police and monitor them constantly, if you bought them from abroad without further intervention unscrupulous people would just move in and start working the land anyway, and if you can figure out how to police it better than they can you might just be better off developing that.
There have been/are efforts like this. I can't comment on successes/failures, but if you want to kick in... this one says $100 saves an acre: https://www.worldlandtrust.org/appeals/buy-an-acre/
Shop around, not all organisations are equal. Also, there is probably similar programs in your area. A lot of good, well established wetland repurchase & conservation efforts in the US.
Shop around, not all organisations are equal. Also, there is probably similar programs in your area. A lot of good, well established wetland repurchase & conservation efforts in the US.
You'd have to buy Brazil first though; the rainforest and its conservation is as much a political issue as it is a financial one.
Isn't it a bit unfair to impose that on Brazil? Europe doesn't have much wood anymore because they used so much of it from the Romans on. The US exported a lot of wood to Europe early in its history (still does). Should we tell Brazilians, "Sorry, that worked for us, but now that we're rich we care about the environment, so tough luck?"
The most cost effective way is probably dropping a few hundred million anti personnel mines in the forest. They're very cheap to produce, very expensive to remove, and reliably keep people out of the area.
There are also numerous indigenous human tribes and untold number of mammals which would likely set these off. And what if you ever want to use the area? We are still finding mines from WWII all over the world. If you absolutely have to take the macho-military-method, I'd personally recommend drones...
The whole point is making the area unusable without the option of changing your mind after the next elections.
This is a joke, right?
I'm half-serious. It wouldn't be the first minefield that acts as a nature reserve, e.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39821956 or https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/06/living-i...
The world does not need more minefields. This idea is bad, and you should feel bad.
Not disparaging IKEA at all--moves like this should be lauded--but this is a working forest, harvested for lumber. I can't speak to how sustainably it's harvested or anything, and while this is commendable, there is profit motive here, as IKEA is heavily dependent on wood for its products.
I think in general, supporting things like working forests from a government level (tax benefits) is probably something that isn't done enough, given forests are one of the best carbon sinks available to us.
I think in general, supporting things like working forests from a government level (tax benefits) is probably something that isn't done enough, given forests are one of the best carbon sinks available to us.
It's a good point to raise, as a working forest is quite different to a protected forest. Where I live is surrounded by working forest and regularly a large swathe will be felled, having a big impact on wildlife and taking at least a couple of decades for that land to recover. That's good for carbon sequestration, which is what Ikea wants it for, but not so good for the forest residents.
[deleted]
the forest was bought by IKEA as part of a strategy to reduce more carbon than it creates through its value chain
They might want to write that into their books, but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
They might want to write that into their books, but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
Unless they plan on cutting the forest down, replanting everything anew and BURYING the chopped wood, they are not really helping. CO2 already in trees doesn't quickly return to the atmosphere if wood is used for long lasting things. Now, IKEA is known to do the opposite...
I know it's counter-intuitive, but it's *almost* better for the environment to NOT recycle paper and bury it in landfills. We're essentially reversing the process of extracting oil.
I know it's counter-intuitive, but it's *almost* better for the environment to NOT recycle paper and bury it in landfills. We're essentially reversing the process of extracting oil.
Its yearly co2 consumption that they are responsible for sustaining. The plants are already consuming co2, this way that will continue to be the case.
Forests are not perpetual carbon sinks, as trees eventually die and then decompose, releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere.
At best, a young and growing forest can be a temporary carbon sink, until it reaches maturity (and steady state).
Alternatively, a forest might support continual carbon sinking if and only if the recently dead and/or mature trees were somehow harvested and treated/stored in such a way that their carbon would not decompose and re-enter the rest of the biosphere.
At best, a young and growing forest can be a temporary carbon sink, until it reaches maturity (and steady state).
Alternatively, a forest might support continual carbon sinking if and only if the recently dead and/or mature trees were somehow harvested and treated/stored in such a way that their carbon would not decompose and re-enter the rest of the biosphere.
Is that accurate? I can't believe that decomposition releases _all_ of the carbon into the atmosphere. Certainly a good amount of it is sequestered into the ground (e.g. coal). Thus a standing forest is never completely carbon neutral.
You are a bit out of date on this, wood isn't really turning into coal anymore these days, since bacteria and fungi have developed the ability to decompose lignin 300Ma ago.
The only thing comparable these days is peat bogs that act as carbon sinks (because their plant matter does not decompose due to acidic and anaerobic environment).
The only thing comparable these days is peat bogs that act as carbon sinks (because their plant matter does not decompose due to acidic and anaerobic environment).
Peat bogs are flammable and can often catch fire, which in turn releases CO2. On timescales that matter, they are but temporary measures.
How exactly would wood just turn into coal, once it dies and falls down? You need really high pressures to form coal, this just doesn't happen without the residual biomass getting burried in some massive geological event. Dead trees are eaten by mushrooms and insects, which all produce CO2.
Broadly speKing, it is - coal does not really form on the timelines relevant to human civilisation
Yes. We should build more using Wood and less using Concrete.
We could make oil or coal and put it under the ground.
The plants are not really consuming CO2 in a grown forest, or more accurately they are consuming and releasing CO2 at the same rate.
A growing forest does consume CO2 more than it releases, but it does not seem to be the case now
A growing forest does consume CO2 more than it releases, but it does not seem to be the case now
Your comment, and the sibling that made similar observations, are correct. But a regulatory system where people are taxed on the net carbon contribution of their holdings is likely to reward them for owning land that is occuppied by plants.
But the point still is that net carbon contribution of land occupied by plants is zero.
I think the point from Ikea’s perspective is that the regulatory regime may consider it to be net positive.
> but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
A forest that is left untouched acts as a CO2 sink by photosynthesis and "capturing" the CO2 as bio-mass.
A re-forestation of land previously used for agriculture acts as a bigger CO2 sink because the potential for biomass capture is greater there.
A forest that is left untouched acts as a CO2 sink by photosynthesis and "capturing" the CO2 as bio-mass.
A re-forestation of land previously used for agriculture acts as a bigger CO2 sink because the potential for biomass capture is greater there.
What's best is doing the oil extraction in opposite. Grow plants and capture CO2, bury them in a way that prevents decomposition (is that possible?).
Yes, you can turn it into charcoal and bury that.
Just make sure it doesn't catch fire.
News reel:
- Big company/person X is does beneficial thing Y
HN:
- It's just a PR stunt!
- It's a ploy to leverage something else and make more profit!
- It's so tiny that it doesn't even make a difference! If they REALLY cared they'd do A, B, C...
- They're actually doing Y to accumulate Z for some nefarious purpose!
- I once did some interaction with X or their products and it went poorly!
- X has skeletons I, J, and K in their closet! Watch out!
- Man, what's with all the X haters on HN today?
- Hoo boy, here come the X fanboys!
- Big company/person X is does beneficial thing Y
HN:
- It's just a PR stunt!
- It's a ploy to leverage something else and make more profit!
- It's so tiny that it doesn't even make a difference! If they REALLY cared they'd do A, B, C...
- They're actually doing Y to accumulate Z for some nefarious purpose!
- I once did some interaction with X or their products and it went poorly!
- X has skeletons I, J, and K in their closet! Watch out!
- Man, what's with all the X haters on HN today?
- Hoo boy, here come the X fanboys!
I don't understand this critique. Corporate PR is largely propaganda. Our corporatist media isn't willing or able pursue actual journalism to find out the truth, so now we have lot's of people searching for answers on a forum that allows for free speech. If you don't like it, you should probably just stick to cable news.
I think you're largely correct, but sometimes corporations can end up doing the "right thing" in the pursuit of good press or to serve brand marketing. I would say that IKEA doing environmental conservation is a good thing in this case, despite the company's motives for doing so being transparently self-serving. To me IKEA's reason for doing this is less important than the positive impact it will have.
Yea I understand what you are saying. I think it's hard in our current environment to understand trade offs because there isn't a lot of truth or trust in journalism or corporate propaganda. It's impossible to make a value determination of this action because we don't have the truth.
I don't think people should just assume it's a positive impact without all of the facts. It could very well be a negative. You seem to be only focused on one dimension of this, forest conservation.
I don't think people should just assume it's a positive impact without all of the facts. It could very well be a negative. You seem to be only focused on one dimension of this, forest conservation.
Meanwhile, in Romania, IKEA owned (through "Vastint") Băneasa Forest is being redeveloped into a 476k sqm (118 acres) residential area. My point here is, once they own the forest, they may choose to redevelop it any any time.
It makes me feel sad that this basic and cheap greenwashing gets more attention than anything environmentally critical.
Here's IKEA's original Press Release which has been worked into this "news" article. The original PR actually has much more clarity: https://www.ikea.com/us/en/this-is-ikea/newsroom/ingka-inves...
IKEA makes it clear that the forest was formerly owned by a conservation group and was seemingly not in danger of being developed, contrary to the headline here.
Here's IKEA's original Press Release which has been worked into this "news" article. The original PR actually has much more clarity: https://www.ikea.com/us/en/this-is-ikea/newsroom/ingka-inves...
IKEA makes it clear that the forest was formerly owned by a conservation group and was seemingly not in danger of being developed, contrary to the headline here.
That's a pretty small forest by American standards but buying up forests or any kind of open land with the intent to spare them from being wrecked by another sprawling exurb is a great thing to do. Similar work has been done by various open space preservation funds and land trusts in California. As a climate strategy it's not really even about the forests, it's about the exurban Americans who are the greatest threat to the global climate.
This smells like some really bold and really ridiculous PR attempt.
"Ikea uses about one percent—yes, one percent—of the world's entire commercial wood supply. That amounts to about 17.8 million cubic yards of lumber last year. " [1]
I guess they need this PR purchase to appease some eko organization. And this is equally ridiculous.
Ikea is making furniture, something people really need. Why they have to explain themselves for doing something useful? What should they use to produce furniture? Would plastic be any better? Iron? Stone?
[1] https://inhabitat.com/one-percent-of-all-the-worlds-commerci...
"Ikea uses about one percent—yes, one percent—of the world's entire commercial wood supply. That amounts to about 17.8 million cubic yards of lumber last year. " [1]
I guess they need this PR purchase to appease some eko organization. And this is equally ridiculous.
Ikea is making furniture, something people really need. Why they have to explain themselves for doing something useful? What should they use to produce furniture? Would plastic be any better? Iron? Stone?
[1] https://inhabitat.com/one-percent-of-all-the-worlds-commerci...
It's because they're fighting the arguably true reality that the majority of their furniture is designed to be disposable, and consumers are generally fine with that. I'd like to be wrong, though until we require companies to be responsible for all costs associated with the full lifecycle of a product so externalized costs are incorporated, we're not going to develop the most sustainable practices.
I've been using a lot of IKEA furniture for many years, some new, some secondhand (sometimes I'm the third or fourth owner) and I must say they're quite durable unlike some of the new furniture I've bought over the year and had to throw away.
Almost everything I have in my house is Ikea, from the desk I'm typing this on (10 years old) and the cupboard next to it (12 years), to my 4 year old bed (had to buy a new bed frame when we moved in to this house because the divan couldn't fit up the stairs)
Aside from one wardrobe which I had to get rid of (it was 237cm -- too tall for this house, so I gave it to my parents), the only furniture I can think of that hasn't lasted is the stuff from places that wasn't Ikea.
I get the feeling that Americans don't rate Ikea as highly as Europeans for some reason, possibly because it's a foreign firm (thinking of popular american TV shows of the late 90s and early 00s showing people struggling with assembling flat pack furniture)
https://notesmatic.com/2016/12/challenge-of-culture-in-marke...
> When entering the US market, it faced a major challenge because the business model it had been using was not replicable in US. Soon IKEA realized that the local culture was a challenge and there was a definite need to adapt to it
Aside from one wardrobe which I had to get rid of (it was 237cm -- too tall for this house, so I gave it to my parents), the only furniture I can think of that hasn't lasted is the stuff from places that wasn't Ikea.
I get the feeling that Americans don't rate Ikea as highly as Europeans for some reason, possibly because it's a foreign firm (thinking of popular american TV shows of the late 90s and early 00s showing people struggling with assembling flat pack furniture)
https://notesmatic.com/2016/12/challenge-of-culture-in-marke...
> When entering the US market, it faced a major challenge because the business model it had been using was not replicable in US. Soon IKEA realized that the local culture was a challenge and there was a definite need to adapt to it
Here in Europe it has a pretty bad name too. But I love it. Their furniture is very versatile, functional and easy.
Also, even though furniture snobs hate it, I love pointing out their KALLAX or BILLY units behind them in online meetings :D :D Then it's "oh yeah but this is my home office, it's not so important".
In my place literally all my furniture is from Ikea and I love it. I don't like spending much on it, and IMO the durability is really excellent. What really helps is that they sell cheap covers for my couches, so if I get bored of them or they get dirty I can just buy a new cover for 29 euros and it's like a brand new couch again!
Also, even though furniture snobs hate it, I love pointing out their KALLAX or BILLY units behind them in online meetings :D :D Then it's "oh yeah but this is my home office, it's not so important".
In my place literally all my furniture is from Ikea and I love it. I don't like spending much on it, and IMO the durability is really excellent. What really helps is that they sell cheap covers for my couches, so if I get bored of them or they get dirty I can just buy a new cover for 29 euros and it's like a brand new couch again!
furniture snobs are just a whole other level of snobbery. I once wandered into a designer furniture store and came out feeling like I had been programmed by a cult. Also felt poor after looking at the price tags. "that nightstand costs as much as a car? I'll take 3 !"
Asked around the office (mainly London based), 6 people like Ikea furniture, 1 person didn't.
All aggreed that the delivery service is rubbish.
Tiny sample
All aggreed that the delivery service is rubbish.
Tiny sample
I was really happy with the delivery service here in Spain actually! They brought it all the way up to the apartment and they were quick and careful.
But yeah N=1 :)
But yeah N=1 :)
The annoying thing about IKEA furniture, and that from competitors, is that all it takes is for a tiny piece of particle board to be damaged internally for the whole item to be useless.
Generally, while they are in one piece and not moved, they are fine. But trasnporting or disassembling this stuff is a risk. The tiny wooden pegs, plastic bits and agressive screws going straight into soft board can rip out chunks, snap off, etc. Good luck getting a replacement door, etc.
Generally, while they are in one piece and not moved, they are fine. But trasnporting or disassembling this stuff is a risk. The tiny wooden pegs, plastic bits and agressive screws going straight into soft board can rip out chunks, snap off, etc. Good luck getting a replacement door, etc.
You can just go to any IKEA and buy a replacement part? Every single part they've ever sold is available at the replacement desk in their stores (at least here in Germany). Even individual screws, legs, etc. When I broke a door and one of the hinges of a kitchen cabinet, I just went to IKEA and bought a replacement door (of the exact same type) and replacement hinge) and replaced them.
Not available in the US. The only thing they will do is either sell you spare small parts or issue a refund.
I'm in the US. I have several times gone to an Ikea store with damaged parts and been able to obtain replacements, sometimes free of charge - including with one part of an entertainment center kit that got dropped on the front porch steps, breaking one panel clean in half and cracking another. They took it back, gave us another, and sent us on our way no questions asked.
I don't doubt you've had trouble, and I don't know what their website or otherwise remote customer service is like, but to say that the service is just not available at all in the US appears incorrect.
I don't doubt you've had trouble, and I don't know what their website or otherwise remote customer service is like, but to say that the service is just not available at all in the US appears incorrect.
I find this odd, in Canada we can get all the replacement parts needed. Just may have to wait a bit but they have them.
You can also search for the serial number on eBay and typically find a compatible part.
In the UK you can get spare bits too.
> You can just go to any IKEA and buy a replacement part?
Assuming there is a store nearby and even that the company is still in business. It's vendor lock-in.
Meanwhile, my solid wood sideboard could be repaired by any competent cabinet maker, without needing specialist hinges or plastic brackets. Not that it is liable to fall apart as easily as particleboard & veneer.
Assuming there is a store nearby and even that the company is still in business. It's vendor lock-in.
Meanwhile, my solid wood sideboard could be repaired by any competent cabinet maker, without needing specialist hinges or plastic brackets. Not that it is liable to fall apart as easily as particleboard & veneer.
Sorry, what?
IKEA can be repaired by any competent cabinet maker. IKEA doesn't use anything fancy and weird, all their stuff is standard or a slightly variation of standard and could easily be replaced by a standard one. In fact most of the IKEA stuff is so popular it has become standard.
IKEA sells both particleboard & veneer for their cheap/budget friendly stuff and hard pine/other wood for more expensive stuff.
You can't have cheap and solid wood, it's just too expensive.
Go down to the local wood shop and buy all the wood you need to make a sideboard and tell me how much it will cost. Certainly will be leagues higher then buying a particleboard & veneer version of the same thing.
IKEA can be repaired by any competent cabinet maker. IKEA doesn't use anything fancy and weird, all their stuff is standard or a slightly variation of standard and could easily be replaced by a standard one. In fact most of the IKEA stuff is so popular it has become standard.
IKEA sells both particleboard & veneer for their cheap/budget friendly stuff and hard pine/other wood for more expensive stuff.
You can't have cheap and solid wood, it's just too expensive.
Go down to the local wood shop and buy all the wood you need to make a sideboard and tell me how much it will cost. Certainly will be leagues higher then buying a particleboard & veneer version of the same thing.
> and hard pine/other wood for more expensive
Pine is a softwood.
Pine is a softwood.
What would prevent your competent cabinet maker from attaching a new hinge and door to an ikea product?
Goodness, I am a software developer, I don't have a woodworking shop but I'd be able to repair pretty much anything Ikea - epoxy, pva, some sawdust for filler (or woodfiller), buy particle boards with same/similar color melamine online.
Any novice woodworker/joiner should be able to fix IKEA w/o any parts from IKEA even.
Any novice woodworker/joiner should be able to fix IKEA w/o any parts from IKEA even.
Repairing a couch is not an option unless you're skilled in re-apolstering.
Well that goes for all couches, ikea or not, doesn't it? That wasn't the question here.
...but other couches are built to last, so repair is much less commonly needed.
How many years does it have to last, before it's "built to last?" I've seen lots of Ikea couches that have lasted a long time.
In broad strokes, Ikea furniture holds up well as long as the humidity and UV is low'ish. Don't leave it out in the open weather, let it get water-laden with humidity, or sit directly exposed to the sun anywhere, and the glues holding it together will generally last their lifecycle (about a decade or two), possibly longer if in an especially well-cared for environment.
With some practice, West System epoxy, filler and fiber glass can easily repair chips and chunks. It helps that I'm not fastidious about aesthetics, so lacking the laminate on top after a repair suits me. The little bits are more challenging to source if Ikea has stopped manufacturing or supplying them. I'm hoping 3D metrology and printing can help with that, so waste from people tossing out old furniture for want of a small part nearly goes away.
YMMV.
With some practice, West System epoxy, filler and fiber glass can easily repair chips and chunks. It helps that I'm not fastidious about aesthetics, so lacking the laminate on top after a repair suits me. The little bits are more challenging to source if Ikea has stopped manufacturing or supplying them. I'm hoping 3D metrology and printing can help with that, so waste from people tossing out old furniture for want of a small part nearly goes away.
YMMV.
Ikea sells replacement parts online. Usually, all you need is their number code which you can find in the manual (or if your lost that in the pdf on their website).
I recently ordered a replacement door myself, just to make it look new again.
I recently ordered a replacement door myself, just to make it look new again.
My understanding is that that is only the case for items which are bought as components. Items which are bought complete inside a single box have to be replaced as such. For example, the assembly guide for the classic Billy has no item numbers listed apart from connectors - https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/assembly_instructions/billy-bookc...
Coincidentally this appears to be changing as of yesterday - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55796429
Coincidentally this appears to be changing as of yesterday - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55796429
Calling everything a connector is a bit disingenuous. If you look at the PDF it has 8 part numbers listed, which is a number for all of the small parts. Also the doors, doorknobs, hinges etc are all available to order.
What's left are shelves and the two wooden sides of the bookcase itself. The shelves can be ordered: https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/billy-extra-shelf-white-1026529...
So I would rephrase your "no item numbers apart from connectors" to "everything can be replaced except for the two sides of the main body". And even those you can get by ordering a new cabinet without any doors or extras, since that's basically the sides + a number of shelfs.
What's left are shelves and the two wooden sides of the bookcase itself. The shelves can be ordered: https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/billy-extra-shelf-white-1026529...
So I would rephrase your "no item numbers apart from connectors" to "everything can be replaced except for the two sides of the main body". And even those you can get by ordering a new cabinet without any doors or extras, since that's basically the sides + a number of shelfs.
You can buy extra shelves as a form of accessory to the main unit - it just so happens that these accessories are equivalent to the ones that come with it. Fair enough, but IKEA sells them to augment your purchase, not as spares.
This is clear because, as you say, you cannot buy the sides, or the unique bottom piece on its own. And the piece which is most likely to degrade is the one which has many connectors pushed into particle board potentially multiple times - the sides.
Maybe it was a poor example, but I think my point still stands. There are many other furniture products for which no spares are sold, or happen to be available to purchase for other reasons.
This is clear because, as you say, you cannot buy the sides, or the unique bottom piece on its own. And the piece which is most likely to degrade is the one which has many connectors pushed into particle board potentially multiple times - the sides.
Maybe it was a poor example, but I think my point still stands. There are many other furniture products for which no spares are sold, or happen to be available to purchase for other reasons.
Why is throwing away the old one, and buying a new one seen as a solution? Like huh? We're talking about waste.
Besides the fact you can normally buy replacement from ikea (or ebay), most of the stuff is fixable via epoxy and wood sawdust(or even cardboard pieces as filler), wood filler accomplishes the task as well. Brass inserts (again epoxied) + machine bolts can fix up any holes/stripped wood screws. As a fast fix insert tooth picks in the hole along with PVA.
Of course in many cases is easier (faster/cheaper) to replace the entire 'thing', altogether.
Of course in many cases is easier (faster/cheaper) to replace the entire 'thing', altogether.
But it's super easy to repair. Just glob some wood glue and it'll ooze deep into that particleboard. The edges of billy don't survive sliding, given, but some electrical tape for the finish and glue for the wood work well.
It's not like we buy them as show pieces.
It's not like we buy them as show pieces.
>edges of billy don't survive sliding
ABS edging is cheap (like really cheap), can get a cutting tool for 10 euro, and glue the edge with double sided tape (or contact adhesive - more messy thought)
ABS edging is cheap (like really cheap), can get a cutting tool for 10 euro, and glue the edge with double sided tape (or contact adhesive - more messy thought)
I bought almost all my IKEA furniture second-hand. Many of them were taken apart and re-built 3 or 4 times in the last 10 years. Most of them hold up really well.
I cannot confirm that IKEA furniture is not durable. It's mostly not hardwood, yes! Of course if you're not careful you can rip out a screw. But that screw or that board is usually easily replaced. And of course, IKEA also has cheaper and more expensive models, models that are not very robust, and models that are.
I cannot confirm that IKEA furniture is not durable. It's mostly not hardwood, yes! Of course if you're not careful you can rip out a screw. But that screw or that board is usually easily replaced. And of course, IKEA also has cheaper and more expensive models, models that are not very robust, and models that are.
And not being hardwood is also good for the environment as hardwood takes much longer to regrow.
They have different quality levels in their products.
The IKEA kitchen island I have is made of solid wood and standard hardware. The top is butcherblock and can easily be resurfaced. This island will last many years.
The IKEA 'linmon' desk I have is laminated cardboard. The weight of my monitor causes the desk to bow. The surface has the durability of flat paint. My phone slipped out of my hand from 12 inches above the desk and put a 1/4 inch deep dent in it. I'm pretty sure if I squeezed it hard enough with my fingers, I could crush it.
The IKEA kitchen island I have is made of solid wood and standard hardware. The top is butcherblock and can easily be resurfaced. This island will last many years.
The IKEA 'linmon' desk I have is laminated cardboard. The weight of my monitor causes the desk to bow. The surface has the durability of flat paint. My phone slipped out of my hand from 12 inches above the desk and put a 1/4 inch deep dent in it. I'm pretty sure if I squeezed it hard enough with my fingers, I could crush it.
Yeah I would argue with the disposability. I use it for many years. I have some Ikea stuff that's 40 years old. Granted, their current product line is not quite as durable but this is partially because they use less materials (hollow surfaces etc).
Yup, I had some second-hand (a desk, used for four eyars) and third-hand (an office chair, used for the last ~9 years) and yes it's pretty durable.
The chair show it's ages on the fake-leather upper side (where your back lays) but then again... It's been used at elast nine years (but maybe it's been ten or eleven).
The chair show it's ages on the fake-leather upper side (where your back lays) but then again... It's been used at elast nine years (but maybe it's been ten or eleven).
The thing about IKEA's stuff is that you usually cannot disassemble and reassemble most of it back losslessly when, say, moving houses.
But then again, a lot of more expensive furniture doesn't fare any better.
But then again, a lot of more expensive furniture doesn't fare any better.
Every single IKEA piece of furniture in my house (desks, tables, sofas, shelves...) is entirely "lossless assembly", although when moving I didn't have to put them apart down to individual parts because they're also designed for whole components to be (dis)assembled and reassembled quickly. I think I have like one piece of furniture that is not entirely lossless and that's the back panel on a closet that needs to be nailed (which provides diagonal constraint), which I've done three times over yet still has room for more.
Okay it's not grandma's stuff that's made of thick solid wood and lasts centuries, but it has really held up well to reasonable abuse.
Okay it's not grandma's stuff that's made of thick solid wood and lasts centuries, but it has really held up well to reasonable abuse.
Yep that's the BILLY that has the folding wood panel you have to nail down. The reason they fold it is to keep the package small. You can re-do it a couple of times if you put the holes in a different spot but it's not great. Especially the folding bit is just tape so it can tear easily.
It is exceptionally cheap though.
It is exceptionally cheap though.
erhm... sorry... but IMHO nine years are "nothing". A good chair should last at least 50 years.
A good office chair should last 50 years? A dining room set, sure, but an office chair is closer to white collar work boots than traditional furniture.
A decade seems reasonable to be honest. In order to be comfortable and ergonomic for ~8 hrs a day the chair will inevitably have some soft components that wear out.
A decade seems reasonable to be honest. In order to be comfortable and ergonomic for ~8 hrs a day the chair will inevitably have some soft components that wear out.
Um... yeah, I disagree. No cushioning is going to survive for 50 years, and something like an office chair should be rotated far sooner than that (or maintained with replacement cushioning/support) to keep the ergonomics intact. Especially for an office chair (assuming this is something like an 8-hr chair and not a short duration task chair).
Then be prepared to pay 10x the IKEA price.
Likewise I've had the opposite experience, and many variables to account for as to which is the norm; the type of furniture, the type of owner and environment it was used in and use profile, etc.
I think this is not as easy a calculus as one might imagine.
Heirloom furniture is in some ways less sustainable than Ikea products. I am not sure there would be enough sustainable hardwood in the world to meet demand at the scale of Ikea.
People have different furniture needs than they did decades ago, and in terms of weight, logistics, material use, Ikea are quite efficient.
Heirloom furniture is in some ways less sustainable than Ikea products. I am not sure there would be enough sustainable hardwood in the world to meet demand at the scale of Ikea.
People have different furniture needs than they did decades ago, and in terms of weight, logistics, material use, Ikea are quite efficient.
The complication is EXACTLY why we need to be even more in panic and hair-on-fire about environmental issues. A colleague did some analyses for the life cycle emissions of refrigerants. The complexity in the process was absurd, and basically intractable without simplifications. How much indirect CO2 emissions are caused by an inefficient compressor? How much does it depend on how you generate electricity? Which country were the gaskets manufactured in? What was the process used to extract the rare earths? Everything depends on everything else and consequences are pretty unknown.
Indeed - which is the argument for point-of-extraction carbon pricing. Then you don't have to calculate anything, it gets sorted out along the supply chain by individual decisions as to whether the CO2 cost is worth it compared to the available alternatives at that step.
The problem there is that most ways to add carbon pricing are against the self interest of whomever enacts it. Point-of-extraction is especially bad because it places all of the initial burden on the few places that actually extract carbon, who are probably not going to like that idea.
On the other hand, those extractors are operating on licenses issued by governments. So in principle, one could add that do their license, and they would just have to deal with it. A challenge is that the market is global, while licenses are given out by nations. So requires alignment of many nations for it not to be a competitive burden on a few producers.
Taxes are already on the government level, I'm not sure what other hand you're referring to here. Who would a corporation even pay the money to if it isn't enacted by a government?
I guess it depends on the 'who' in those places.
It's not hard to imagine a government rather fancying getting a tax receipt from extraction companies, particularly if it is seen as green. Who would presumably lobby rather hard against it. This suggests the absence of pricing at source is to some extent a result of successful lobbying.
It's not hard to imagine a government rather fancying getting a tax receipt from extraction companies, particularly if it is seen as green. Who would presumably lobby rather hard against it. This suggests the absence of pricing at source is to some extent a result of successful lobbying.
The problem is exports; the government is already making money on extraction companies selling their goods abroad. If they burden them with extra taxes, that'll get translated to the price other nations pay, which will reduce exports, and thus reduce government's profit. In a competitive exports market, a country with environmental taxes will lose to the one without.
Sorry, how does a government bring in tax revenue off of exports? Tarrifs are levied on imports rather than exports.
Sure they would make less money off corporation taxes with lower exports, but as those receipts are generally low anyway the tradeoff going to carbon tax would likely be favourable.
Sure they would make less money off corporation taxes with lower exports, but as those receipts are generally low anyway the tradeoff going to carbon tax would likely be favourable.
Not directly off exports, but doing any kind of operation in a country involves government getting a cut of the profits via corporate taxes, laborers' income taxes, etc. All of these get smaller if the corporation sells less.
Until every country in the world has agreed upon doing that you still need to estimate CO2 when exporting and importing things from and to the common-carbon-price zone.
Sounds exactly like the kind of problem market economies handles very well.
Main problem is figuring out how to incorporate emissions into price signals.
Main problem is figuring out how to incorporate emissions into price signals.
Pricing negative externialities is EXACTLY the kind of thing market economies are terrible at.
Which was kind of my point. How can we internalize the externalities?
> Sounds exactly like the kind of problem
It didn't really work out so far, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about an emergency.
It didn't really work out so far, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about an emergency.
Hence why the real solution has always been:
1. Electrify everything possible 2. Shift all electricity production to renewables, massively increase power output with nuclear nuclear nuclear. 3. Carbon capture.
1. Electrify everything possible 2. Shift all electricity production to renewables, massively increase power output with nuclear nuclear nuclear. 3. Carbon capture.
Destroying old growth forests is still a bad idea even if you have enough energy to capture all the carbon.
Everytime I hear the word 'carbon capture' I just think of trees. This is literally what trees do, they capture carbon.
Yes, but to get a long term net effect we'd have to bury them about as deep as the fossils we are excavating. I dare claim that this won't happen (it would be far cheaper/more efficient to leave those fossils and synthesize something from those trees up here)
Sometimes I wonder, as a mind experiment, how close we could get to practical carbon burial with a process based on sinking polymer blocks in the ocean: the specifics of the polymer blocks wouldn't matter at all as long as the surface doesn't degrade into spreading microplastics and total density would be high enough to sink, and they could be shaped like standard containers for easy logistics. The result of the mind experiment is always the same, even that could not possibly compete with leaving fossils underground.
Sometimes I wonder, as a mind experiment, how close we could get to practical carbon burial with a process based on sinking polymer blocks in the ocean: the specifics of the polymer blocks wouldn't matter at all as long as the surface doesn't degrade into spreading microplastics and total density would be high enough to sink, and they could be shaped like standard containers for easy logistics. The result of the mind experiment is always the same, even that could not possibly compete with leaving fossils underground.
Fossil fuels are not the only thing we do that cannot be carbon neutral though, such as construction with cement.
Additionally, carbon capture does not necessarily mean we are burning "fossil" fuels. Carbon capture could be using the Sabatier process to create methane from the CO2 in the air, which you then use to power rocketships/jets/etc, which we are still not very close to electrifying.
Additionally, carbon capture does not necessarily mean we are burning "fossil" fuels. Carbon capture could be using the Sabatier process to create methane from the CO2 in the air, which you then use to power rocketships/jets/etc, which we are still not very close to electrifying.
We could turn the trees into furniture and surupticiously spread them out in buildings around the world. Hey wait a minute?
So the missing link would be a second page in the manual where the reverse path from furniture back to flatpack is described? A nightmarish challenge, definitely makes me the Ikea manual guy with the questionmark, ready to phone into the help line.
> to get a long term net effect we'd have to bury them about as deep as the fossils we are excavating.
Why? What is wrong with capturing carbon the way trees naturally do? (Honest question)
Why? What is wrong with capturing carbon the way trees naturally do? (Honest question)
Trees are part of a closed cycle: eventually they burn or are decomposed biologically (fungi and animals). As far as I know, all the high quality fossil reservoirs we excavate have been accumulated in an exceptional era when the biological defense mechanisms of trees happened to have so much of an upper hand over all potential decompositors that their corpses basically stayed around forever. Imagine a C heap when for a while free() is a noop... (it has been fixed for quite a while now).
The closest thing we have today to those "eternal tree corpses" are peat bogs were decomposition is kind of broken even today (and guess who discovered that dried up peat can burn, even if it's a very dirty fire? Humans. We just love oxydating carbons).
The closest thing we have today to those "eternal tree corpses" are peat bogs were decomposition is kind of broken even today (and guess who discovered that dried up peat can burn, even if it's a very dirty fire? Humans. We just love oxydating carbons).
I think they mean 'after the tree has been cut down or otherwise reached the end of its life'.
And then release a large majority of it when they die and are eaten by fungus and bacteria.
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/recycling-dea...
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/recycling-dea...
Thus, growing a tree and burning the wood (or disposing of it) is 100% carbon neutral. What's the problem, then?
The problem is that it's useless for sequestering carbon that's already in air, that we sourced from deep underground.
Yes, the obvious step would be to stop burning fossil carbon, it seems like a much more pressing issue than sequestering the one that is already in the atmosphere.
By now we need to do both, there is already too much carbon in the atmosphere. If you look at the IPCC projections, 1.5°C is only achievable with carbon capture of some sorts [0] (if at all). Research and development for this has to be pushed yesterday.
Though word is in the air that the previous assessments might have been very optimistic.. although that will probably only be discussed in 2022 when the 6th assessment report is to be published. Which presses the issue only further.
[0] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...
Though word is in the air that the previous assessments might have been very optimistic.. although that will probably only be discussed in 2022 when the 6th assessment report is to be published. Which presses the issue only further.
[0] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...
People probably aren't going to be flying around in wood-powered passenger jets any time soon.
I mean sure, but a forest will still capture more carbon than a plain. And it provides many more advantages than just capturing carbon for the diversity of our ecosystem.
Ooh and stop mining Bitcoin
Actually, as part of "Electrify everything", it would probably be good to replace a significant chunk of the banking system with a cryptocurrency layer (maybe bitcoin, maybe not).
With green energy, digital gold is a lot more green than physical gold. Bitcoin is like electric cars – not super green right in this moment when the grid is still dirty, but all it takes to make it greener is to green up the grid.
Meanwhile the classical banking system: uses all forms of transport which green up slower (armored cars, planes, etc), requires crazy amounts of construction (I don't even want to guess how much cement has been used in the construction of physical banks all over the world), all those buildings use energy for AC/lighting/etc, require huge amounts of manpower to manage trust in the system (people definitely aren't green), and also need their own datacenters anyway. And I'm sure I'm forgetting some things, where as with BTC pretty much all consumption is baked into mining, which again just gets greener automatically as the grid gets greener. Nobody is running a Bitcoin mining operation off of diesel generators. If you did the math (impractical given the breadth of the existing banking system), I think you'd find Bitcoin is already far greener than the existing banking system, by a huge margin.
And cryptos like Ethereum have the potential to 10x/100x/1000x that with things like PoS vs. PoW as well as the fact that Ethereum smart contracts can not only replace banking but probably other industries as well, such as title companies and various other middlemen.
With green energy, digital gold is a lot more green than physical gold. Bitcoin is like electric cars – not super green right in this moment when the grid is still dirty, but all it takes to make it greener is to green up the grid.
Meanwhile the classical banking system: uses all forms of transport which green up slower (armored cars, planes, etc), requires crazy amounts of construction (I don't even want to guess how much cement has been used in the construction of physical banks all over the world), all those buildings use energy for AC/lighting/etc, require huge amounts of manpower to manage trust in the system (people definitely aren't green), and also need their own datacenters anyway. And I'm sure I'm forgetting some things, where as with BTC pretty much all consumption is baked into mining, which again just gets greener automatically as the grid gets greener. Nobody is running a Bitcoin mining operation off of diesel generators. If you did the math (impractical given the breadth of the existing banking system), I think you'd find Bitcoin is already far greener than the existing banking system, by a huge margin.
And cryptos like Ethereum have the potential to 10x/100x/1000x that with things like PoS vs. PoW as well as the fact that Ethereum smart contracts can not only replace banking but probably other industries as well, such as title companies and various other middlemen.
> And cryptos like Ethereum have the potential to 10x/100x/1000x that with things like PoS vs. PoW as well as the fact that Ethereum smart contracts can not only replace banking but probably other industries as well, such as title companies and various other middlemen.
It's been 13 years now and nobody's done it, because that's a terrible idea. The reason lawyers exist is that all contracts have ambiguity and require a human to review and consider. All contracts have circumstances that aren't captured. Just ask the DAO folks.
Middlemen exist for a reason. Efficiency, conflict and ambiguity resolution, and so on.
Blockchains are only useful for things that are entirely captured within the blockchain. As soon as you interface the blockchain with the outside world you have to trust something to enter and capture that data accurately - garbage in, garbage out. Once you're trusting someone, you don't need a blockchain, just fire up and RDS instance and save everyone the headache.
It's been 13 years now and nobody's done it, because that's a terrible idea. The reason lawyers exist is that all contracts have ambiguity and require a human to review and consider. All contracts have circumstances that aren't captured. Just ask the DAO folks.
Middlemen exist for a reason. Efficiency, conflict and ambiguity resolution, and so on.
Blockchains are only useful for things that are entirely captured within the blockchain. As soon as you interface the blockchain with the outside world you have to trust something to enter and capture that data accurately - garbage in, garbage out. Once you're trusting someone, you don't need a blockchain, just fire up and RDS instance and save everyone the headache.
For starters, I think you're underestimating how much of what we do in the modern world is entirely digital and therefore can be entirely captured in a blockchain. There are decentralized trustless platforms running on Ethereum right now. You can transact currency on a plethora of decentralized exchanges, without all the layers that doing so with an exchange of USD -> RMB requires today. There are pilot programs built around blockchain that allow people to sell excess energy production (e.g. with home solar) back to other people on the "grid" in an entirely decentralized way.
And with tokens that are tied to real-life things, the benefit is that once you've used real-world trust systems (e.g. real-life contracts / lawyers / courts / etc) to tie something to the blockchain, you can (going forward) hand everything over to the trustless and secure system. i.e. You tie your property to the blockchain once, and from then on you don't need to involve all those inefficient systems, you just transact the tied token directly on the blockchain.
Just because it hasn't been done successfully yet doesn't mean it's not viable. How long did the internet exist before [thing that is taken for granted on the internet now] was successful?
Finally, Ethereum launched in 2015, not sure where you're getting 13 years from.
And with tokens that are tied to real-life things, the benefit is that once you've used real-world trust systems (e.g. real-life contracts / lawyers / courts / etc) to tie something to the blockchain, you can (going forward) hand everything over to the trustless and secure system. i.e. You tie your property to the blockchain once, and from then on you don't need to involve all those inefficient systems, you just transact the tied token directly on the blockchain.
Just because it hasn't been done successfully yet doesn't mean it's not viable. How long did the internet exist before [thing that is taken for granted on the internet now] was successful?
Finally, Ethereum launched in 2015, not sure where you're getting 13 years from.
But how else will people make money than in a global, decentralized pyramid/MLM scheme?
s/make/lose/
But I see your point.
We should make a pyramid/MLM scheme where you're promised rewards for planting trees, segregating waste, cleaning up in any potential wildlife habitats, and reducing/reusing stuff in general.
But I see your point.
We should make a pyramid/MLM scheme where you're promised rewards for planting trees, segregating waste, cleaning up in any potential wildlife habitats, and reducing/reusing stuff in general.
Great example. Reminds me of Milton Friedman's "Nobody knows how to make a pencil" essay.
A lot of human progress is result of human actions but not planning. Centralized planning around "climate change" would 100% be a recipe for disaster and a monumental failure about which future generations will write for 100s of years just the way we talk about slavery today.
Your use of carbon makes my existence on the planet a bit risky and hence you should pay me some compensation. But how much ? That is an impossible task for anyone and not just for the centralized government systems but even for highly efficient private players looking at very small problems. This is something that even outright climate change deniers like me admit.
A lot of human progress is result of human actions but not planning. Centralized planning around "climate change" would 100% be a recipe for disaster and a monumental failure about which future generations will write for 100s of years just the way we talk about slavery today.
Your use of carbon makes my existence on the planet a bit risky and hence you should pay me some compensation. But how much ? That is an impossible task for anyone and not just for the centralized government systems but even for highly efficient private players looking at very small problems. This is something that even outright climate change deniers like me admit.
It comes down to you do whatever bare minimum "we" determine is necessary to do your part in this struggle, or we'll eventually go to war to hold the line if your practices unsustainablility outweigh the cost of war; arguably in globalised society you can and should use economic levers first.
There's a world of difference between Ikea particleboard crap and heirloom furniture - you can make quite useful and durable furniture from pine board; Ikea actually does (though they could stand to spend some time on the design, the IVAR system is BY FAR the worst storage related problem I've ever dealt with; tossed that into the fire and got Uline wire shelves instead).
Moving the lifecycle of a piece of furniture from 3-5 years closer to 20 is highly worth it; even if I no longer need it I prefer to leave it on the curb for someone else than have to shove it into the trash can. And these metal shelves will last longer than I will - and can move to the garage if I no longer need them.
Moving the lifecycle of a piece of furniture from 3-5 years closer to 20 is highly worth it; even if I no longer need it I prefer to leave it on the curb for someone else than have to shove it into the trash can. And these metal shelves will last longer than I will - and can move to the garage if I no longer need them.
I like Ivar ...
The biggest problem is that furniture, instead of a class of objects with longevity and functionality has now become a fashion article, and IKEA is a large factor in that shift.
Not to beat the snowflake millenial drum too hard, but my parents moved from the house they've owned since they were younger than me. They have furniture like bookcases, beds, couches, tables, much of which they offered to me. But I live in a 2 bedroom apartment that is less than 1/3 of the size of their house, so it just doesn't fit. As an example, their dining room table is wider than my living room! I can't take any of that furniture from our family home into my current home whether I want to or not, and even as a dual income household, with one working in tech, we can't afford to buy a house that would fit even half of their furniture.
Yup, very important point that IKEA has aligned with modern day living constraints and arguably modern day fashion. This highlights the issue of the Landlord-Rental complex that needs to be countered too. All a "fun" experiment but we must get these systems in check - we could all live like Kings and Queens in a sustainable world if only for organization and rallying resources towards so - against the status quo and those currently incentivized against such a system.
I buy utility furniture at the thrift store. When I'm done with it, it goes back to the thrift store :-)
it goes back to the thrift store
Last time I moved I found that thrift stores are very picky about what furniture they accept.
Last time I moved I found that thrift stores are very picky about what furniture they accept.
If I get it from the thrift store, it surely meets their criteria for donations. I'm a bit picky on what I select, too. For example, no upholstered stuff, because of possible bedbugs.
Take care of your furniture or give it away to those in need?
give it away to those in need?
Tried that as well. They took a dining table with a few scratches in it, but no charity I talked to wanted bookshelves or TV stands/media benches.
Tried that as well. They took a dining table with a few scratches in it, but no charity I talked to wanted bookshelves or TV stands/media benches.
From a different point of view, I would say that I don't see their furniture as "designed to be disposable", more that there is good marked for re-use through other people.
Spotted a few comments from people saying they have had second hand items (3rd, 4th etc) - and I think that in my head is where my version of "disposable" has come from.
When I no longer want an Ikea product because it doesn't fit, or no longer needed - I will sell it online, and get a new one - for me I have "disposed of it" but actually its been "recycled" to someone that really wants it.
Anecdotally - I have never thrown away any IKEA furniture due to old age or defects. It's always been passed on, or I have received a new one. - Admittedly this is just my POV, and I fully understand people have their own experiences - but I would like to think that in some small part, I am helping with that sustainable process.
IKEA in this case, I am glad that they are at least trying to do something (again not saying other companies don't but we are in a thread about IKEA's recent work!) - and I would like to think that to round of the ring of sustainability that it isn't just the companies that need to input, its the people that use it too.
Maybe I am being too idealistic, but I will do what I can in my small little bubble to be part of that sustainable process!
I realise I got this far and didn't think about the point I was trying to make! - But yeah, from my perspective I don't feel like IKEA design it to be disposable, but I am sure other people have other experiences too :)
Spotted a few comments from people saying they have had second hand items (3rd, 4th etc) - and I think that in my head is where my version of "disposable" has come from.
When I no longer want an Ikea product because it doesn't fit, or no longer needed - I will sell it online, and get a new one - for me I have "disposed of it" but actually its been "recycled" to someone that really wants it.
Anecdotally - I have never thrown away any IKEA furniture due to old age or defects. It's always been passed on, or I have received a new one. - Admittedly this is just my POV, and I fully understand people have their own experiences - but I would like to think that in some small part, I am helping with that sustainable process.
IKEA in this case, I am glad that they are at least trying to do something (again not saying other companies don't but we are in a thread about IKEA's recent work!) - and I would like to think that to round of the ring of sustainability that it isn't just the companies that need to input, its the people that use it too.
Maybe I am being too idealistic, but I will do what I can in my small little bubble to be part of that sustainable process!
I realise I got this far and didn't think about the point I was trying to make! - But yeah, from my perspective I don't feel like IKEA design it to be disposable, but I am sure other people have other experiences too :)
When people say "designed to be disposable" they don't mean reuse is not possible - just not likely, because a thing wears out quickly, or is a hassle to give someone else. Former means there's not much of a second-hand market, the latter means that even giving away for free is too much work compared to just dumping it.
I'm very much surprised about the amount of comments here on HN (today and in many previous discussions) that claim to reuse IKEA furniture; it's completely contrary to my experience. My opinion of IKEA furniture is that it's single-assembly - trying to break it apart irreparably destroys it.
I conclude there must be either high variance in IKEA's production quality, or we're comparing apples to oranges. Maybe some IKEA products have more reassembly potential than others. Someone mentioned an office chair elsewhere in the thread - yeah, that obviously can last years and be moved, because it's made of metal and hard plastics. But most IKEA furniture I experienced is made of dried toilet paper glued with formaldehyde^W^W^W^W^W^Wmedium-density fibreboard and assembles destructively.
I'm very much surprised about the amount of comments here on HN (today and in many previous discussions) that claim to reuse IKEA furniture; it's completely contrary to my experience. My opinion of IKEA furniture is that it's single-assembly - trying to break it apart irreparably destroys it.
I conclude there must be either high variance in IKEA's production quality, or we're comparing apples to oranges. Maybe some IKEA products have more reassembly potential than others. Someone mentioned an office chair elsewhere in the thread - yeah, that obviously can last years and be moved, because it's made of metal and hard plastics. But most IKEA furniture I experienced is made of dried toilet paper glued with formaldehyde^W^W^W^W^W^Wmedium-density fibreboard and assembles destructively.
Not thought about the re-assembly side of things - most of the second hand items I have collected didn't need dismantling - they came as one unit. (At the cost of the annoyance of moving it as a single unit!)
I am sure there are different experiences out there, could also be the circle of friends that do a lot of IKEA "freecycling" meaning I do see a higher quantity of re-used items being moved about.
I know that depending on the type of item as well there is a build quality issue - like Kallax shelving, it is a little more sturdier than the slightly cheaper version, and given I started with Kallax, I have stuck with it - Same with the Billy book cases too!
Although, the Diam Cake you can get from IKEA... that 100% is not going to waste, and 100% no one is getting a "second hand" one from me... there will be none left ;)
But returning back! It could be Apples to Oranges, there are so many products, and in my experience I have seen people stick to the same grouping of products as well, which could see re-use more possible than say another grouping (for any number of reasons).
Who knows, tomorrow the shelf behind me might just fall apart and I will be back eating my own words :)
I am sure there are different experiences out there, could also be the circle of friends that do a lot of IKEA "freecycling" meaning I do see a higher quantity of re-used items being moved about.
I know that depending on the type of item as well there is a build quality issue - like Kallax shelving, it is a little more sturdier than the slightly cheaper version, and given I started with Kallax, I have stuck with it - Same with the Billy book cases too!
Although, the Diam Cake you can get from IKEA... that 100% is not going to waste, and 100% no one is getting a "second hand" one from me... there will be none left ;)
But returning back! It could be Apples to Oranges, there are so many products, and in my experience I have seen people stick to the same grouping of products as well, which could see re-use more possible than say another grouping (for any number of reasons).
Who knows, tomorrow the shelf behind me might just fall apart and I will be back eating my own words :)
I've moved twice with all of my furniture and it's still going strong. The only thing that worries me for my next move would be the board on the back of my bookshelf, since it's only held in with very tiny nails.
If I understand which board you're talking about (a thin hardboard on the back), I'm usually not worried about that one - I have a stockpile of nails available, and I could probably reinforce it with something I have on hand if the edges degrade too much. My problems are usually that driving screws and other fasteners sometimes damages the material, making the connection single-use only. It's fixable to some extent with adhesives, but once you start pouring glue down the shafts, the whole thing becomes that much harder to disassemble in the future.
Some regions are more humid, and the same particleboard that lasts decades dry will break down quickly.
I see a lot of classic examples of survivorship bias in this thread.
Seasoned IKEA customer here. They have two types of products, one type is durable and the other is not and it's pretty easy to tell the difference from the price. Desks and bookcases are good examples of the former.
They also have disposable desks and bookcases.
Look for furniture that will withstand someone leaning or sitting on it. The cheap designs are held together with cam-lock nuts and bolts or screws, and it's inevitable that at some point someone will lean on the desk and pull the screws through the particle board.
Furniture that will last longer has multiple fixings to keep it square, or diagonal cross-pieces (or a flat sheet).
This is going to last much longer:
Look for furniture that will withstand someone leaning or sitting on it. The cheap designs are held together with cam-lock nuts and bolts or screws, and it's inevitable that at some point someone will lean on the desk and pull the screws through the particle board.
Furniture that will last longer has multiple fixings to keep it square, or diagonal cross-pieces (or a flat sheet).
This is going to last much longer:
..._____________
..._______•__•_|
\\ | |
\\ | |
\\ | |
\\| |
\| |
| |
..._____________
..._________•__|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |[deleted]
I’ve been using my disposable desk for 10 years now, and my disposable shelves for even longer than that. Not sure I’ve ever thrown away IKEA furniture, though I have sold some and given other items away.
If you compare Ikea furniture to the comparable items you get from Target or Walmart, Ikea is hands down far better quality. Sure it might not last generations, but it is affordable and built from basically sawdust so I have to imagine their 1% usage comes from simply the scale of their production rather than inefficiency or anything like that.
Doesn't seem that bad to make forests, then cut them down, mix them together with stuff that makes them non-compostable and then just jamming it in the ground.
Some local pollution, but you ultimately are sequestering the carbon, so all is well.
Some local pollution, but you ultimately are sequestering the carbon, so all is well.
A while ago I spent far too long trying to work out if carbon sequestration through wood (charcoal, in this case) was feasible.
The answer is, partly. We probably couldn't fix global warming, but we probably could negate a reasonable chunk of emissions.
https://concretecuts.xyz/articles/biochar/
The answer is, partly. We probably couldn't fix global warming, but we probably could negate a reasonable chunk of emissions.
https://concretecuts.xyz/articles/biochar/
In 3 millenias: « Woah! Free chopped wood for our furnaces, from just a dozen feet underground! » — Wait, exactly what we did.
Is there a silent /sarcasm tag at the end of this comment?
It doesn’t read as sarcasm to me. The bulk of the ideas seem “in the right direction”, just with a bunch of gaps and uncertainty. The gaps and uncertainty are where research and conversation live. I read the comment in that spirit.
It's carbon capture isn't it? Use fast growing wood, make furniture by gluing flakes together. If it gets tossed, it just sits underground.
Need to make sure it does not rot (releases methane), or get burned. And that the environmental cost of transportation does not outweigh the benefit. But otherwise it is a potential mechanism, I guess.
Assuming it does stay underground, instead of rotting away in a landfill. GGP said "non-compostable", but I presume they meant "not suitable for composting", and not "physically unable to decay".
My brilliant crackpot roommate told all of us that he's actually the one saving the planet when he prints a ton of paper and not recycle it, ten years back. We all looked at him weird but eventually I realized how right he was.
A lot of their furniture is made of materials like chipboard, which is made with waste byproducts and low quality leftovers.
This certainly can be more efficient and environment-friendly than using prime slow-growth oak (for example).
This certainly can be more efficient and environment-friendly than using prime slow-growth oak (for example).
I wish this was extended to many other products. Automobiles for example, should incorporate the costs associated with poisoning our air (including EVs as rubber tyres shed microparticles).
A bottle of coke should incorporate the cost of fishing the plastic out of the ocean.
A bottle of coke should incorporate the cost of fishing the plastic out of the ocean.
Tires and brakes are both emitters, admittedly with motor braking you probably emit less total brake dust in an EV in a comparatively heavy ICE car.
Also still included in an EV is the carbon cost of mining, refining and manufacturing:
- Metal parts
- Plastic parts
- Organic fabric parts (raising cattle, big cost. Pleather? Still costly, and now it's plastic too, can't win)
- Battery minerals and production
- Electronics manufacturing
- Glass manufacturing
I am still all for EVs mind you, hell yes. But they are a massively consumptive item.
Also still included in an EV is the carbon cost of mining, refining and manufacturing:
- Metal parts
- Plastic parts
- Organic fabric parts (raising cattle, big cost. Pleather? Still costly, and now it's plastic too, can't win)
- Battery minerals and production
- Electronics manufacturing
- Glass manufacturing
I am still all for EVs mind you, hell yes. But they are a massively consumptive item.
Citation needed that wood based products are bad for the environment compared to say plastic. The alternative to IKEA crap is injection molded crap, so perhaps this is the better of the two evils.
Not to pile on to the anecdata here, but I've owned a lot of different Ikea furniture over the years, and in the words of (I think) Douglas Coupland it's "semi-disposable."
Much of it will last a lifetime as long as you never disassemble it or move it further than the next room. Some of it is more fragile than that. Very rarely something is more durable -- here's looking at you, Klippan!
Much of it will last a lifetime as long as you never disassemble it or move it further than the next room. Some of it is more fragile than that. Very rarely something is more durable -- here's looking at you, Klippan!
> I'd like to be wrong, though until we require companies to be responsible for all costs associated with the full lifecycle of a product so externalized costs are incorporated, we're not going to develop the most sustainable practices.
Why only the companies should be responsible?
I would say it's fairer to share the "blame" with everyone else. The consumers, the government, the whole society.
Why only the companies should be responsible?
I would say it's fairer to share the "blame" with everyone else. The consumers, the government, the whole society.
The resale value of my Ikea stuff was quite high. This doesn’t support your argument, at least for my region and IKEA.
Idea has levels of quality. But some must view it all as disposable and low quality because how else could they justify spending 3x or more at other furniture stores. Most shop at Ikea for affordability, style options, and a good return guarantee.
One factor missing from conversation is timescale.
Disposable? I've never had to throw away any IKEA furniture. These things can easily last 15 years.
15 years? My table is 90. My grandparents bought it used when they first moved together after their wedding. Hardwood and a bit of care once in a while (2-3 years, waxing) goes a long way.
Survivorship bias.
Most furniture from 30+ years ago is broken. The older it gets, the more likely it is to have been broken. For your grandparents (and the folks they passed it on to), it means: You were able to have space for the table all the years, and didn't move into a place where it didn't fit. It means it didn't have accidents. Do you have chairs that came with it - or did they break too (very common)? If you do have the chairs, are they sturdy enough for a child to climb on and wiggle in? (many aren't).
It means they didn't have a fire or break the table when moving it (if they moved over the years).
It means they could wax it and so could everyone else. It means they could do repairs when needed. It means that it didn't rot despite waxing.
It means that you (and/or other family members) also had a space for it: If you bought an old piece used, it meant that there was an avenue to sell it.
And a bunch of things like that. 90 year old furniture isn't the norm, and can hardly be used to verify that older things are made better (and besides, they had some cheap stuff too).
Most furniture from 30+ years ago is broken. The older it gets, the more likely it is to have been broken. For your grandparents (and the folks they passed it on to), it means: You were able to have space for the table all the years, and didn't move into a place where it didn't fit. It means it didn't have accidents. Do you have chairs that came with it - or did they break too (very common)? If you do have the chairs, are they sturdy enough for a child to climb on and wiggle in? (many aren't).
It means they didn't have a fire or break the table when moving it (if they moved over the years).
It means they could wax it and so could everyone else. It means they could do repairs when needed. It means that it didn't rot despite waxing.
It means that you (and/or other family members) also had a space for it: If you bought an old piece used, it meant that there was an avenue to sell it.
And a bunch of things like that. 90 year old furniture isn't the norm, and can hardly be used to verify that older things are made better (and besides, they had some cheap stuff too).
My experience with Ikea furniture is that they last - even abusive children. It is not Ikea's fault furniture is thrown away really.
Danish Design type of furniture is what breaks if you are not careful. I.e. slick nice looking chairs and what not.
Danish Design type of furniture is what breaks if you are not careful. I.e. slick nice looking chairs and what not.
who are the next largest furniture manufacturers, and how does Ikea's durability/sustainability match up with them?
Ikea doesn't compete with hardwood furniture... They compete with Wayfair, target, and Walmart furniture. Ikea builds a significantly better product with the same materials IMO.
Ikea doesn't compete with hardwood furniture... They compete with Wayfair, target, and Walmart furniture. Ikea builds a significantly better product with the same materials IMO.
I guess the argument would go that we would be better off building small quantities of long-lasting re-usable furniture, rather than building and throwing away lots of new cheaper furniture
The low prices at Ikea and others definitely encourage over-consumption - buying a new table instead of restoring an old one for example
Personally I don't necessarily subscribe to this argument, I think that we can focus on bigger sources of pollution/waste than transporting flatpack lumber, but I can see the argument
The low prices at Ikea and others definitely encourage over-consumption - buying a new table instead of restoring an old one for example
Personally I don't necessarily subscribe to this argument, I think that we can focus on bigger sources of pollution/waste than transporting flatpack lumber, but I can see the argument
> I guess the argument would go that we would be better off building small quantities of long-lasting re-usable furniture, rather than building and throwing away lots of new cheaper furniture
No way. Not as long as population growth is a thing. A lot of people shopping at IKEA are buying furniture for the first time. Imagine if we switched to all hardwood furniture. People would still need to buy as much furniture for the next 20-40 years or so at least, but now those furniture will have a huge environmental impact. Maybe you reduce the long-term impact, but probably not for 50 years at least.
Making things out of cheap and low-impact particle boards, cardboard cores, etc, is probably the most realistic way of reducing the environmental impact. It maximises the use of the wood, you can make it out of fast growing wood, and you minimise use of materials. If you reuse more of the wood fibers through recycling, it'd be even better.
I feel like this whole "we should use long-lasting re-usable furniture" thing is more about upper middle class people wanting to feel good about buying expensive furniture or spending the time to find and refurbish old furniture. There's nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't scale.
No way. Not as long as population growth is a thing. A lot of people shopping at IKEA are buying furniture for the first time. Imagine if we switched to all hardwood furniture. People would still need to buy as much furniture for the next 20-40 years or so at least, but now those furniture will have a huge environmental impact. Maybe you reduce the long-term impact, but probably not for 50 years at least.
Making things out of cheap and low-impact particle boards, cardboard cores, etc, is probably the most realistic way of reducing the environmental impact. It maximises the use of the wood, you can make it out of fast growing wood, and you minimise use of materials. If you reuse more of the wood fibers through recycling, it'd be even better.
I feel like this whole "we should use long-lasting re-usable furniture" thing is more about upper middle class people wanting to feel good about buying expensive furniture or spending the time to find and refurbish old furniture. There's nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't scale.
> Making things out of cheap and low-impact particle boards, cardboard cores, etc, is probably the most realistic way of reducing the environmental impact.
Not only that, it being made out of particleboard doesn't necessarily make it disposable. My parents have a set of Pax wardrobes that they've had for 20 years (give or take?), and they're perfectly functional, and with some small amount of TLC (a small tin of paint) could even be classed as pretty!
Not only that, it being made out of particleboard doesn't necessarily make it disposable. My parents have a set of Pax wardrobes that they've had for 20 years (give or take?), and they're perfectly functional, and with some small amount of TLC (a small tin of paint) could even be classed as pretty!
[deleted]
> People would still need to buy as much furniture for the next 20-40 years or so at least, but now those furniture will have a huge environmental impact.
I question that. Population growth is not that fast, and I can easily see how the amount of replaced furniture is bigger than the amount of furniture bought for the first time.
I question that. Population growth is not that fast, and I can easily see how the amount of replaced furniture is bigger than the amount of furniture bought for the first time.
Buying new stuff in the west is now cheaper than repairing old items - this is a combination of outsourcing production, loosing skills, and deliberate efforts by compabies like Apple and Sonor to make their equipment unrepairable.
https://youtu.be/Npd_xDuNi9k
https://youtu.be/Npd_xDuNi9k
Also cost of human labour vs automation.
Manufacturing is done by machines but maintenance and repair are generally carried out by humans.
Agree that hostile design or just lack of attention are also huge issues.
Manufacturing is done by machines but maintenance and repair are generally carried out by humans.
Agree that hostile design or just lack of attention are also huge issues.
And the fact that the environmental impact isn't factored into the cost
Is it “cheaper” environmentally?
Possibly.
If you want to fix furniture, you need space and tools, so you need bigger houses (or the ability to move the furniture to a community spot) and tools. Tools will generally be made of metal, and needs factories to make these tools. Some of the parts are available freely: I'm guessing not all are.
Manufacturing will need to be different as well if your pieces aren't designed to be repaired in such a way: Who knows if this would be more environmentally friendly.
Not to mention that it is a skill, so a repair might not even repair it but break it further - but now we've made the tools and things on top of the furniture (that didn't even use up scraps of wood, but caused them).
If you want to fix furniture, you need space and tools, so you need bigger houses (or the ability to move the furniture to a community spot) and tools. Tools will generally be made of metal, and needs factories to make these tools. Some of the parts are available freely: I'm guessing not all are.
Manufacturing will need to be different as well if your pieces aren't designed to be repaired in such a way: Who knows if this would be more environmentally friendly.
Not to mention that it is a skill, so a repair might not even repair it but break it further - but now we've made the tools and things on top of the furniture (that didn't even use up scraps of wood, but caused them).
What 'Tools' are needed to repair a chair or a wardrobe? A screwdriver, a saw, a drill?
They last decades, and can be used to repair tens of thousands of items.
To suggest that their environmental impact is higher than that of equivalent favtory equipment needed to produce furniture is delusional.
They last decades, and can be used to repair tens of thousands of items.
To suggest that their environmental impact is higher than that of equivalent favtory equipment needed to produce furniture is delusional.
The issue isn't so much that ONE drill or saw is so much more - though, there are specialized tools for furniture that I do not have, but I also don't have a drill. The issue is that isn't just me needing these things if you want furniture repaired. If you want folks to fix things at home, you need everyone to have access to them if not own them. Everyone needs space to work on things if needed. If it isn't at the house, you need transportation. You aren't even reducing the factory equipment on-hand because it still would need to be produced. Dining chairs, for example, tend to get abused just by use and break in ways that cannot be fixed (oops, leg broke in half and I can't make this without woodworking tools and lots of training).
You are simply reducing manufacturing of one type of furniture with another (that doesn't use the scraps in production) and very much increasing a lot of other manufacturing and increasing the space people need to have available to do these things.
Edit: I'll mention that many folks are simply going to buy the cheapest tools to fix stuff: A decent drill isn't cheap, but a cheap drill might get you by if you only use it lightly and occasionally. If people are using them more, I suspect more will be thrown away. At least the furniture is using some renewable products: Drills aren't made of wood and pressure and glues.
You are simply reducing manufacturing of one type of furniture with another (that doesn't use the scraps in production) and very much increasing a lot of other manufacturing and increasing the space people need to have available to do these things.
Edit: I'll mention that many folks are simply going to buy the cheapest tools to fix stuff: A decent drill isn't cheap, but a cheap drill might get you by if you only use it lightly and occasionally. If people are using them more, I suspect more will be thrown away. At least the furniture is using some renewable products: Drills aren't made of wood and pressure and glues.
> To suggest that their environmental impact is higher than that of equivalent favtory equipment needed to produce furniture is delusional
Western society has become full of contradiction...
Consumerism is environmentalism,
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Western society has become full of contradiction...
Consumerism is environmentalism,
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
A friend of mine who moved across country a few times tells me it is cheaper to throw furniture away and rebuy it than ship it.
(Throwing it away also includes giving it to the thrift store.)
(Throwing it away also includes giving it to the thrift store.)
As someone who recently moved across the country, that's true with 90% of what I owned. $3000 to ship and I could replace damn near everything for less, with a few exceptions - clothing, electronics, artwork.
But he always buys new, rather than getting furniture from a thrift store?
> The low prices at Ikea and others definitely encourage over-consumption - buying a new table instead of restoring an old one for example
This is never going to fly with regular folks, though. We could probably reduce pollution a ton if people started patching their clothes, but that's never going to happen either.
This is never going to fly with regular folks, though. We could probably reduce pollution a ton if people started patching their clothes, but that's never going to happen either.
I think new clothes just needs to be expensive enough that patching is worth it
Okay so on things we are gatekeeping from the poor we have moved on to...
checks notes
Clothes?
checks notes
Clothes?
Buying two $100 tables vs one $200 table is not overconsumption. Both consume $200.
Do they use the same amount of wood though? There's more to "consumption" than money!
Wood is a renewable resource.
I don't see how using it is bad.
I don't see how using it is bad.
Well, in terms of carbon in the atmosphere, making furniture from wood actually makes a lot of sense, assuming you use sustainable forestry (replant the same amount or more).
That carbon in your furniture isn't going into the air anytime soon, hopefully never.
That carbon in your furniture isn't going into the air anytime soon, hopefully never.
I run some numbers in the past and I think that going all-in to wood houses and stuff really makes lots of sense. It's not a solution to all CO2 problems, but having lots of wood in the forests AND lots of wood in people houses allows to keep a sizeable chunk of carbon from atmosphere.
It's a shame that wood is not as popular nowadays.
Of course people should regrow two trees for every one cut.
It's a shame that wood is not as popular nowadays.
Of course people should regrow two trees for every one cut.
> Ikea is making furniture, something people really need.
The problem is that, like with clothes, people THINK they need more and newer things all the time because Marketing tells them that they do.
I read somewhere (can't find the link right now) that shit tons of clothes and other items are not laying around in warehouses not being sold (due to lockdown) and I don't see people walking around naked in the streets.
So, before buying something, ask yourself: 1) Do I really need it? 2) Can I buy it used?
The problem is that, like with clothes, people THINK they need more and newer things all the time because Marketing tells them that they do.
I read somewhere (can't find the link right now) that shit tons of clothes and other items are not laying around in warehouses not being sold (due to lockdown) and I don't see people walking around naked in the streets.
So, before buying something, ask yourself: 1) Do I really need it? 2) Can I buy it used?
Well the thing with furniture is that it fills up your place quickly. As apartments get smaller (most countries are in a housing crisis) that pretty much stops people buying furniture they don't need.
I only ever buy furniture because I really have a need for it. Not because I think it's cool or anything.
I only ever buy furniture because I really have a need for it. Not because I think it's cool or anything.
That's great, but I assure you, a lot of people just throw out old furniture and buy new ones just because they feel like their old furniture is out of style.
Downsizing creates a market opening for cabinets, shelves, organizers and other things that let you utilize vertical space more efficiently.
>The problem is that, like with clothes, people THINK they need more and newer things all the time because Marketing tells them that they do.
This is a problem with capitalism, not IKEA or clothing.
This is a problem with capitalism, not IKEA or clothing.
Maybe, but companies do have choices and don't need to blindly maximize profit.
Yes they do, the system will punish them if they do otherwise:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-airlines-stock-si...
>American Airlines has tried to make amends, by announcing a significant pay raise for flight attendants and pilots , to take base pay rates to industry highs, years ahead of when union contracts would become amenable.
>The stock AAL, +6.63% tumbled as much as 8.6% in intraday trade, before paring some losses, even though the airline reported first-quarter earnings that beat expectations, while revenue rose in line with forecasts.
>“We are troubled by [American’s] wealth transfer of nearly $1 billion to its labor groups,” Baker wrote in a note to clients.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-airlines-stock-si...
>American Airlines has tried to make amends, by announcing a significant pay raise for flight attendants and pilots , to take base pay rates to industry highs, years ahead of when union contracts would become amenable.
>The stock AAL, +6.63% tumbled as much as 8.6% in intraday trade, before paring some losses, even though the airline reported first-quarter earnings that beat expectations, while revenue rose in line with forecasts.
>“We are troubled by [American’s] wealth transfer of nearly $1 billion to its labor groups,” Baker wrote in a note to clients.
>Ikea is making furniture, something people really need.
Exactly, IKEA *processes* one percent of commercial wood supply to build furniture for people. People who want furniture from IKEA use one percent of commercial wood supply. People want furniture made out of wood.
Same logic applies to oil companies who extract oil and WE use it to drive cars, take buses, use plastics, build roads etc.
Exactly, IKEA *processes* one percent of commercial wood supply to build furniture for people. People who want furniture from IKEA use one percent of commercial wood supply. People want furniture made out of wood.
Same logic applies to oil companies who extract oil and WE use it to drive cars, take buses, use plastics, build roads etc.
Isn’t it a sad world we live in when our gut feeling always is that “this smells like a PR trick”. I’m not saying it isn’t, just that it’s sad that we have built a world where we don’t trust our companies motivations.
HN is particularly cynical though, the top post on nearly every article is negative.
>"Ikea uses about one percent—yes, one percent—of the world's entire commercial wood supply. That amounts to about 17.8 million cubic yards of lumber last year.
Yeah, seems a little over the top to me too.
Ikea makes particle board furniture. Particle board is basically glue plus waste products from all the other things that use wood. You might as well complain that the dog food and fertilizer industries uses some % of the world's meat.
Yeah, seems a little over the top to me too.
Ikea makes particle board furniture. Particle board is basically glue plus waste products from all the other things that use wood. You might as well complain that the dog food and fertilizer industries uses some % of the world's meat.
Well, just because they're producing something useful doesn't mean they can't give back at the same time! Small changes add up.
Exactly. I don't know if Ikea has an ethical way of producing its goods, anyhow if they do something useful, it doesn't hurt.
I won't say Ikea is a benefactor company because they preserved that land, but it certainly won't bother me!
I won't say Ikea is a benefactor company because they preserved that land, but it certainly won't bother me!
There are some serious allegations that Ikea sources illegally harvested wood and convinces regulatora to look the other way
https://fsc-watch.com/2020/07/02/ikeas-ukrainian-illegal-tim...
https://fsc-watch.com/2020/07/02/ikeas-ukrainian-illegal-tim...
He he: http://skyddaskogen.se/en/news/4852-ikea-s-forest-in-romania...
They've had these issues for at least 5 years, I remember reading about it back in 2015.
They've had these issues for at least 5 years, I remember reading about it back in 2015.
It does smell like a PR attempt. But if a PR attempt is what it takes do something better than what came before I don't mind.
Fun fact, wood is a renewable resource that sequesters carbon.
[deleted]
They’re also making more of it because it doesn’t last anywhere near as long as it used to. A chest of drawers made out of oak or good plywood (yes, plywood can be good) used to last a literal lifetime. It also costs a lot more.
I guess this has started, indeed. In Spain, one of the Twitter trending topics is a promoted Ikea hashtag loosely translated to "unknowingly being an activist"... so I'm assuming it refers to this movement
We'll see how that goes, but if they pursue some kind of vertical integration where they can make their own wood in a sustainable way... that'd be pretty sweet imho.
OTOH, it was recently announced that in order to promote sustainability, IKEA is going to sell spare parts too.
That's pretty good imho.
And keep in mind that we're talking about wood, something that's fairly recyclable, all things considered: imagine if apple started doing the same with iphone and macbook pro parts (that is selling spares directly to consumers)
OTOH, it was recently announced that in order to promote sustainability, IKEA is going to sell spare parts too.
That's pretty good imho.
And keep in mind that we're talking about wood, something that's fairly recyclable, all things considered: imagine if apple started doing the same with iphone and macbook pro parts (that is selling spares directly to consumers)
I thought it might be a tax harvesting plan. Dunno. Last I looked into Ikea I thought their whole corporate structure was odd: the stores are part of a non-profit holding company that licenses the brand and furniture as art or something to that affect. Seems dodgy.
Of course, everybody is doing that.
IKEA uses wood? really? I thought they used shitty agglomerates and other mixes in their furniture, maybe all the wood is for something else?
They have some full wood products, some of their pricier desks, dining tables and kitchen countertops are full wood. Maybe all those thin wood covers on everything else add up, too.
Yup, many full wood items. One of their cheapest dressers is pure pine. The Poang is just laminated wood.
When I read it, I read it like "IKEA Buys 11,000 Acres of U.S. Forest to Keep It From Being Developed for now"
Not throwing furniture away every few years will seriously help solve the problem. Of course, that would mean fewer sales for companies like IKEA.
They already think the Western world has reached peak stuff:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/weve-hit-pe...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/weve-hit-pe...
Of course they would say that.
And even if that were true, their prospective sales don't depend on the "Western" world only, not to say anything about the fact that equating "the Western world does not buy stuff anymore" with "the world doesn't buy stuff anymore" is peak orientalist (but this being standard corporate communication it does not surprise me).
And even if that were true, their prospective sales don't depend on the "Western" world only, not to say anything about the fact that equating "the Western world does not buy stuff anymore" with "the world doesn't buy stuff anymore" is peak orientalist (but this being standard corporate communication it does not surprise me).
[deleted]
> This smells like some really bold and really ridiculous PR attempt.
Of course it is, they just use illegal loggers in Romania to offset their actual need for the crappy disposable stuff they produce. They seem to get away with that no problem, despite EU restrictions on it.
I've never seen the appeal of IKEA when it came to furniture, the long lines at some of the bigger ones I've been to (for breakfast) are baffling and you'd think they were giving the stuff away given how long some people would wait to get in. It all looks and feels so cheap, it looks like what they use when staging a home for sale or what a cheap studio set looks like for a 1 shot scene in a movie.
IKEA had to settle so many wrongful infant deaths in the US, something that arguably could have been prevented by the parents, but it doesn't undo the fact that it comes down to a sub-standard QC/QA practices and literately no engineering in their design team. But, IKEA (now a Dutch company not Swedish despite its branding) is the China of furniture and focuses on that business model: cheap, disposable items that are profitable only at immense scale.
> Well, just because they're producing something useful doesn't mean they can't give back at the same time! Small changes add up.
Ha, useful... I'm guessing you've never lived near a University. the amount of IKEA crap that shows up in the dumpsters near off campus apartments at the end of the term is enough to make you forget about the word 'useful' when describing IKEA ever again. I've spent most of my time near Universities in the US, and its always the same crap littering the area after finals. The cheap plywood gets warped if it snows outside so most of its damaged beyond repair for even 2nd hand use. I wanted some night stands to use as in the garage for my tools once when I was in HS and was willing to do some repair work, but after dragging the thing a block it literately fell apart and the plywood had disintegrated and warped beyond use.
Of course it is, they just use illegal loggers in Romania to offset their actual need for the crappy disposable stuff they produce. They seem to get away with that no problem, despite EU restrictions on it.
I've never seen the appeal of IKEA when it came to furniture, the long lines at some of the bigger ones I've been to (for breakfast) are baffling and you'd think they were giving the stuff away given how long some people would wait to get in. It all looks and feels so cheap, it looks like what they use when staging a home for sale or what a cheap studio set looks like for a 1 shot scene in a movie.
IKEA had to settle so many wrongful infant deaths in the US, something that arguably could have been prevented by the parents, but it doesn't undo the fact that it comes down to a sub-standard QC/QA practices and literately no engineering in their design team. But, IKEA (now a Dutch company not Swedish despite its branding) is the China of furniture and focuses on that business model: cheap, disposable items that are profitable only at immense scale.
> Well, just because they're producing something useful doesn't mean they can't give back at the same time! Small changes add up.
Ha, useful... I'm guessing you've never lived near a University. the amount of IKEA crap that shows up in the dumpsters near off campus apartments at the end of the term is enough to make you forget about the word 'useful' when describing IKEA ever again. I've spent most of my time near Universities in the US, and its always the same crap littering the area after finals. The cheap plywood gets warped if it snows outside so most of its damaged beyond repair for even 2nd hand use. I wanted some night stands to use as in the garage for my tools once when I was in HS and was willing to do some repair work, but after dragging the thing a block it literately fell apart and the plywood had disintegrated and warped beyond use.
Because Ikea is the only affordable furniture chain that makes good looking furniture.
By that I mean that Ikea furniture doesn't chase current trends the way all the other big chains do (I'm in Austria). So buying furniture from Ikea means that you can use it for a long time without your home looking from a certain area.
Also, going to Ikea with kids is a great experience. It's almost like going to a theme park, and alternatively you can drop them off at the Småland.
By that I mean that Ikea furniture doesn't chase current trends the way all the other big chains do (I'm in Austria). So buying furniture from Ikea means that you can use it for a long time without your home looking from a certain area.
Also, going to Ikea with kids is a great experience. It's almost like going to a theme park, and alternatively you can drop them off at the Småland.
Honestly the (nearly) unchanging availability is the main selling point - you can buy something today and buy something in a few years that will match (though what you bought today may have broken if you had to move).
I have had good experience moving ikea furniture, by disassembling and then re-assembling it.
Some of them, multiple times.
Some of them, multiple times.
> without your home looking from a certain area.
Did you mean "era" given that you mentioned time? "Area" also sort of makes sense which is why I wanted to clarify.
Did you mean "era" given that you mentioned time? "Area" also sort of makes sense which is why I wanted to clarify.
IKEA is just as dutch as the Rolling Stones.
Well, it is Dutch. Just saying it isn't doesn't change anything. They're registered in the Netherlands and operate in accordance with Dutch laws.
It's a large group of companies, with various bits of that group registered in various countries and obviously operating (mainly) in accordance with local laws.
Basically "IKEA" as a total entity is split into two parts, one is the stores and things related to that like customer support and property management. That bit is ultimately owned by a Dutch holding company and then a Dutch foundation.
The other bit is "the concept", the design and production of the furniture, and the logistics. That is ultimately owned by Interogo Foundation registered in Liechtenstein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:IKEA_ownership_chart
In practice it's all controlled by the Kamprad family, which currently live in England and Belgium according to wikipedia.
Reportedly the reason to have ownership in the Netherlands is to avoid taxes, which is a integral piece of the IKEA culture of cheapness.
Basically "IKEA" as a total entity is split into two parts, one is the stores and things related to that like customer support and property management. That bit is ultimately owned by a Dutch holding company and then a Dutch foundation.
The other bit is "the concept", the design and production of the furniture, and the logistics. That is ultimately owned by Interogo Foundation registered in Liechtenstein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:IKEA_ownership_chart
In practice it's all controlled by the Kamprad family, which currently live in England and Belgium according to wikipedia.
Reportedly the reason to have ownership in the Netherlands is to avoid taxes, which is a integral piece of the IKEA culture of cheapness.
You're missing my point. If we're "accusing" Ikea of being a Dutch company, it's because the laws of that country allow the creation of tax havens.
If the Netherlands would rewrite those laws, the Kamprads wouldn't be able to do what they're doing.
If the Netherlands would rewrite those laws, the Kamprads wouldn't be able to do what they're doing.
Yeah and so is Ferrari. Wouldn't call them a Dutch company.
> Ikea is making furniture, something people really need. Why they have to explain themselves for doing something useful? What should they use to produce furniture? Would plastic be any better? Iron? Stone?
Unfortunately we live in a world where virtue signaling is more important than actual virtues and winning arguments is more important than actual winning. Yes this is a PR thing and will help to create a positive public image that IKEA hopes will help them thwart the evil eyes of the rent seeking politicians.
Note: A tree is useful and carbon negative only if it is growing a tree in forest that has stopped growing is mostly useless for offsetting carbon, if anything we need a Logging 2.0 where we cut down a lot of trees and use them for long term purposes such as furniture, housing, infrastructure etc. and plant and grow new trees.
> Why they have to explain themselves for doing something useful?
They don't have to and neither does Amazon, Google, Exxon and thousand other companies have to explain anything to the public or govermint and yet you see so many attempts by government and activists to force them to explain.
Unfortunately we live in a world where virtue signaling is more important than actual virtues and winning arguments is more important than actual winning. Yes this is a PR thing and will help to create a positive public image that IKEA hopes will help them thwart the evil eyes of the rent seeking politicians.
Note: A tree is useful and carbon negative only if it is growing a tree in forest that has stopped growing is mostly useless for offsetting carbon, if anything we need a Logging 2.0 where we cut down a lot of trees and use them for long term purposes such as furniture, housing, infrastructure etc. and plant and grow new trees.
> Why they have to explain themselves for doing something useful?
They don't have to and neither does Amazon, Google, Exxon and thousand other companies have to explain anything to the public or govermint and yet you see so many attempts by government and activists to force them to explain.
There appears to be two camps of people in this debate. Those who expect corporations to behave according to the ethics and morals of society and those who believe corporations should attempt to extract as much profit as possible.
To those in the second camp I'd ask, why shouldn't society seek to place limits on corporate behaviour when it believes that behaviour is harmful to the long term goals of society? Why should the profit motive be put before social need?
Without social and governmental intervention we'd still have cigarette companies paying doctors to promote their products as safe and healthy. We'd still be experiencing crime waves brought on by leaded gasoline and fireproofing would still be made from asbestos. Should the government and activists have allowed these things to continue? If not, what differentiates them from expecting Ikea to responsibly manage it's consumption of lumber?
To those in the second camp I'd ask, why shouldn't society seek to place limits on corporate behaviour when it believes that behaviour is harmful to the long term goals of society? Why should the profit motive be put before social need?
Without social and governmental intervention we'd still have cigarette companies paying doctors to promote their products as safe and healthy. We'd still be experiencing crime waves brought on by leaded gasoline and fireproofing would still be made from asbestos. Should the government and activists have allowed these things to continue? If not, what differentiates them from expecting Ikea to responsibly manage it's consumption of lumber?
> _Note: A tree is useful and carbon negative only if it is growing a tree in forest that has stopped growing is mostly useless for offsetting carbon,_
Don't trees grow till they die?
Don't trees grow till they die?
I think the point is that after it dies frequently it will release all the stored carbon back into the atmosphere. In the case of turning the tree into furniture its really what happens at the end of the furniture's life. If it ends up buried in a landfill then the carbon is probably sequestered for a few hundred years, but if it ends up going through an incinerator for electricity/etc generation then its not actually offsetting long term.
> I think the point is that after it dies frequently it will release all the stored carbon back into the atmosphere
Only if it burns, dead tree are generally eaten away over decades by insects, fungus and birds.
Only if it burns, dead tree are generally eaten away over decades by insects, fungus and birds.
Rotting, as its known, is just the tree being metabolized by other living organisms. That process is the same as burning except in that the energy is used by the organism. The net result being the carbon being turned into C02 same as burning.
AKA, whether you burn it, or leave it in the environment to rot/compost/etc the carbon eventually turns back into C02. In order for trees to be a carbon sink they have to be sequestered in an O2 free environment forever. AKA, they need to be feedstock for the oil the cockroaches are going to use to build their civilization in a 100M years.
AKA, whether you burn it, or leave it in the environment to rot/compost/etc the carbon eventually turns back into C02. In order for trees to be a carbon sink they have to be sequestered in an O2 free environment forever. AKA, they need to be feedstock for the oil the cockroaches are going to use to build their civilization in a 100M years.
The thing with IKEA is that most of their furniture looks good at first sight, but when it's been in your living room for a couple of years you tend to become very aware of the somewhat generic blandness of the design, the cheapness of the material and that micro-tuned "just good enough" build quality to the point that it begins to irk. You don't love a piece of IKEA and it is not something you're going to hand to your children when that time comes. I'm quite sure almost all IKEA furniture ends up in landfill within 30 years, so all pretense at durability seems misguided to me.
Also people say IKEA is cheap but IMO it's actually rather expensive for what you're getting. Walk into an auction room and see what you can get for that 200 euro.
Also people say IKEA is cheap but IMO it's actually rather expensive for what you're getting. Walk into an auction room and see what you can get for that 200 euro.
It's because eastern european forests are cheap: https://www.romania-insider.com/schweighofer-sells-forests-r...
"IKEA is continuing to try and remain true to their principals—protecting the environment and striving to become a carbon neutral company, while still remaining one of the world’s most pleasurable shopping experiences."
Written by someone who has clearly never been to an IKEA.
Written by someone who has clearly never been to an IKEA.
Some people actually love it! Some people really view it as a day trip. Especially the showroom part. I always skip that entirely :P
I know, I don't know how someone can love it either.. I hate the way they have these predefined paths so you can't quickly get what you need. And if you try to use the shortcut they make it as difficult as possible.
Usually I pick everything online and find out the storage locations, and just walk in through the checkouts to get what I need straight from the warehouse. Only issue is that some of the smaller knicknacks are only on the shop floor :(
I know, I don't know how someone can love it either.. I hate the way they have these predefined paths so you can't quickly get what you need. And if you try to use the shortcut they make it as difficult as possible.
Usually I pick everything online and find out the storage locations, and just walk in through the checkouts to get what I need straight from the warehouse. Only issue is that some of the smaller knicknacks are only on the shop floor :(
We don't mind the food - meatballs and lingonberry soda!
However they've designed the store to TRAP YOU and make you go through the "shopping gauntlet" to exit.
However they've designed the store to TRAP YOU and make you go through the "shopping gauntlet" to exit.
True, when I was a consultant on the road I'd eat there all the time. Quick, cheap and much better than McDonalds. And also near the highway most of the time.
Usually I'd try to walk out through the entrance after :) Most of the time this worked fine.
Usually I'd try to walk out through the entrance after :) Most of the time this worked fine.
I like it! The huge selection and tens of showrooms are really cool. I especially like their "whole apartment" demos, like maximizing use out of a small apartment without making it cramped.
It's definitely not for everyone, my sister hates the "gauntlet" (as someone else here called it) and how busy it gets.
It's definitely not for everyone, my sister hates the "gauntlet" (as someone else here called it) and how busy it gets.
[deleted]
I wish IKEA was public so I could buy some shares. Not because of this news necessarily, I do not see much value with this move but in general I can see that their business works amazingly here in Europe.
Everyone hating on Ikea quality in the comments - but they do make some well-designed item, even out of stainless steel - that will last.
But most people seem to be buying that £5 coffee table out of paper.
But most people seem to be buying that £5 coffee table out of paper.
Manufacturing and building things out of sustainably managed forestry is one of the best ways to sequester carbon while making a profit and producing products people use and value.
Here's the link to Economist article from 2005, which explains how IKEA uses non-profit status. I frequently buy from IKEA but used to think of it a well oiled corporation, and didn't know that it was "non-profit".
https://www.economist.com/business/2006/05/11/flat-pack-acco...
https://www.economist.com/business/2006/05/11/flat-pack-acco...
If you avoid paying taxes, it is easy to be charitable.
Wikipedia: > The IKEA group has a complex corporate structure, which members of the European Parliament have alleged was designed to avoid over €1 billion in tax payments over the 2009–2014 period.[14][15] It is controlled by several foundations based in the Netherlands and Liechtenstein.[16][17]
Wikipedia: > The IKEA group has a complex corporate structure, which members of the European Parliament have alleged was designed to avoid over €1 billion in tax payments over the 2009–2014 period.[14][15] It is controlled by several foundations based in the Netherlands and Liechtenstein.[16][17]
The most indisputable proof to me of our nonprofit and charity systems being complete bullshit has always been the fact that IKEA is a nonprofit "to promote better interior design".
I wonder whether across spans of decades you should be more trusting of governments or companies to preserve the environment.
[deleted]
Ikea has been buying large pieces of land in rainforest for years. Why? It can come in handy one day to be able to break the newspapers about how Ikea is saving the rainforest. Especially if shit hits the fan and the newspapers starts publishing bad news about Ikea.
~17 square miles, that's a sizable purchase. The _real_ benefit would occur if they manage it correctly (simulating natural forest fires with sustainable logging practices) and harvest the carbon that is captured so more carbon can be captured.
>IKEA is continuing to try and remain true to their principals—protecting the environment and striving to become a carbon neutral company, while still remaining one of the world’s most pleasurable shopping experiences.
They lead the article with THAT? #redflag
They lead the article with THAT? #redflag
11,000 acres is about equal to a square property 4 miles on each side. It's a noble gesture, and the best outcome would be to motivate others to do the same.
Makes me wonder how much property could be bought for preservation with a Go Fund Me?
Makes me wonder how much property could be bought for preservation with a Go Fund Me?
Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games also own forests to keep them from being chopped down!
Gotta say that isn’t that much land, I’ve been looking at land with a couple friends. I can get 1,000 acres of land with lumber for probably $800-$2000 per acre. Really depends where, just saying 11,000 acres really isn’t much.
In what state were you looking?
Yet they're buying shady wood from countries in the Eastern Block in Europe.
[deleted]
Is this good or bad? Imagine an oil company buying up large oil fields, and they say, to stop oil production. They just bought resources they can do whatever they want with.
Why make an analogy with oil companies? Ikea uses a renewable resource (wood, from tree farms), then goes further and buys a natural forest for conservation reasons.
ikea doesn't need to buy the forest for the wood.
ikea doesn't need to buy the forest for the wood.
What I mean is buying land is not a commitment to anything good or bad. It just means they can now use the land for anything they want.
> ikea doesn't need to buy the forest for the wood
This is a great investment, and this is business. It is ridiculous to think they're buying it just to offset their footprint.
> ikea doesn't need to buy the forest for the wood
This is a great investment, and this is business. It is ridiculous to think they're buying it just to offset their footprint.
Just for scale, one of the 3 national forests in my region is about 900,000 acres.
It's not really restricted from development, but it's land that no one is in any hurry to develop.
It's not really restricted from development, but it's land that no one is in any hurry to develop.
They have been profiting from illegal logging for years if not decades.
https://www.channel4.com/news/investigation-thousands-of-tre...
And they also bought entire forests through corrupt companies. http://skyddaskogen.se/en/news/4852-ikea-s-forest-in-romania...
https://www.channel4.com/news/investigation-thousands-of-tre...
And they also bought entire forests through corrupt companies. http://skyddaskogen.se/en/news/4852-ikea-s-forest-in-romania...
There's no alternative to IKEA and, personally, I don't mind. Although, I have to admit that IKEA was better in the early years.
I'm excited to see a goodnewsnetwork.org article make it to the top of hacker news. This site has become a favorite of mine.
This is laughable, they do this all the time in Romania just to chop down half the trees to build shitty bookshelves.
Trees are a renewable resource. They grow back!
And those shitty bookshelves are way more biodegradable than if they were made out of any other material like plastic.
Proper forestry practices are much more common today even in developing countries than you think.
And those shitty bookshelves are way more biodegradable than if they were made out of any other material like plastic.
Proper forestry practices are much more common today even in developing countries than you think.
This seems like a failure of government.
Hope they do the same in Brazil!
Same as Norwegian govt. rain forest fund did in Brazil. Good on you Ikea!
It could be viewed as an investment to hedge upcoming inflation?
Wait, I don't get it. Is that satire or not?
Damn is IKEA the next Felix Dennis, great times.
That's called a strategic reserve
Since I had to look it up:
11,000 hectares is 45 km²
11,000 hectares is 45 km²
IKEA buys 11,000 Acres of U.S. Forest to diversify their assets, uses climate change as a PR booster
I read something like - Butcher buys 1000 cows to keep them away from slaughter house.
Does it scale?
Thank you IKEA
wow, a pittance from a muilti-billion dollar global corporation.
are you impressed? cause i'm not.
are you impressed? cause i'm not.
I never understood why people hate IKEA. Yes it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime. Yes it needs a lot of wood. Yes it's highly optimized.
But guess what, IKEA is a business responding to the needs of people. The negatives that are mentioned frequently are merely a symptom of our ever faster developing society. The people who complain are the same ones that just buy cheap crap from china without even thinking about it.
IKEAs ability to produce products that people actually need, at such a scale, is amazing to me. It does what it promises. It's cheap. It fills most people's needs fully. Customer support is perfect. I know in 10 years replacements for their core products will still be available. Their way of innovating the products is genius.
I can't think of any other company that even comes close. Well, maybe LEGO.
But guess what, IKEA is a business responding to the needs of people. The negatives that are mentioned frequently are merely a symptom of our ever faster developing society. The people who complain are the same ones that just buy cheap crap from china without even thinking about it.
IKEAs ability to produce products that people actually need, at such a scale, is amazing to me. It does what it promises. It's cheap. It fills most people's needs fully. Customer support is perfect. I know in 10 years replacements for their core products will still be available. Their way of innovating the products is genius.
I can't think of any other company that even comes close. Well, maybe LEGO.
Personally, I dislike IKEA for registering as a non-profit, when they're very clearly not. To me, this belongs in the same bucket as any number of tax avoidance schemes that ensure wealthy individuals pay far lower tax rates than the average person, and that large corporations pay effectively nothing.
If they're able to provide great customer service - well, good on them, but I'd much rather the public purse have the money necessary to support people in general. I'm very, very tired of "innovation" being used as an excuse to completely ignore relevant taxes and laws, especially when said innovation is often possible only because of extensive public investment in research, supply chain stability, etc.
(If you're not sure what I'm talking about with that last sentence: read The Entrepreneurial State, or talk to anyone who's ever received a DARPA / NSF / etc. grant, or maybe even just go look at an actual public sector budget sometime.)
If they're able to provide great customer service - well, good on them, but I'd much rather the public purse have the money necessary to support people in general. I'm very, very tired of "innovation" being used as an excuse to completely ignore relevant taxes and laws, especially when said innovation is often possible only because of extensive public investment in research, supply chain stability, etc.
(If you're not sure what I'm talking about with that last sentence: read The Entrepreneurial State, or talk to anyone who's ever received a DARPA / NSF / etc. grant, or maybe even just go look at an actual public sector budget sometime.)
> Personally, I dislike IKEA for registering as a non-profit, when they're very clearly not.
They're clearly not a charity. But there are TONS of tax-sheltered businesses that aren't charities.
To me, it's morally equivalent to eg churches that use tax-free money to buy and operate super nice concert venues. Or any other non-profit that uses pre-tax money to pay salaries.
IMO, Ikea > Churches.
> or talk to anyone who's ever received a DARPA / NSF / etc. grant
Y Combinator recently published an article about how to bootstrap a biotech startup on a small seed round, and they included an example company. Step Zero was "get NSF/NIH grants and hire a student/post-doc at a university". Incidentally also the Step Zero for lots of tech companies in the 80s, 90s, and even today.
They're clearly not a charity. But there are TONS of tax-sheltered businesses that aren't charities.
To me, it's morally equivalent to eg churches that use tax-free money to buy and operate super nice concert venues. Or any other non-profit that uses pre-tax money to pay salaries.
IMO, Ikea > Churches.
> or talk to anyone who's ever received a DARPA / NSF / etc. grant
Y Combinator recently published an article about how to bootstrap a biotech startup on a small seed round, and they included an example company. Step Zero was "get NSF/NIH grants and hire a student/post-doc at a university". Incidentally also the Step Zero for lots of tech companies in the 80s, 90s, and even today.
That's not particularly nefarious.
The NIH and NSF have two funding programs, the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs, that specifically fund startups/spin-outs from their research programs. More here: https://www.sbir.gov/ Some DARPA programs also have similar commercialization milestones: our PMs were pushing people to think about FDA approval and manufacturing.
The NIH and NSF have two funding programs, the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs, that specifically fund startups/spin-outs from their research programs. More here: https://www.sbir.gov/ Some DARPA programs also have similar commercialization milestones: our PMs were pushing people to think about FDA approval and manufacturing.
> That's not particularly nefarious.
Completely agreed! I didn't mean to give that impression at all. I was simply giving a specific recent example demonstrating GP's statement that "especially when said innovation is often possible only because of extensive public investment in research, supply chain stability, etc.".
Completely agreed! I didn't mean to give that impression at all. I was simply giving a specific recent example demonstrating GP's statement that "especially when said innovation is often possible only because of extensive public investment in research, supply chain stability, etc.".
IKEA > (Mega) churches.
There are smaller churches that would benefit from the Govt policies.
There are smaller churches that would benefit from the Govt policies.
It's less about the size of the church and more about the % of the church's untaxed revenue that is spent on salaries and mostly-single-use worship space. Plenty of small churches spend almost all of their revenue on pastoral salary and workship space. It's fine, to each their own, but treating that sort of tithing the same way we treat donations to actual charities seems weird. Both Ikea and non-charitable $ spent by churches should be taxes.
TBH though, it's not 1800. we should stop (not) taxing based on institution type and start (not) taxing based on where the dollars are going. This would solve lots of problems in the non-profit world (including IKEA and churches).
TBH though, it's not 1800. we should stop (not) taxing based on institution type and start (not) taxing based on where the dollars are going. This would solve lots of problems in the non-profit world (including IKEA and churches).
> we should stop (not) taxing based on institution type and start (not) taxing based on where the dollars are going
While I don't necessarily disagree, this seems like it would create a large administrative burden and a strong incentive for businesses to simply lie (or creatively disguise) where there money going. This seems easier than fraudulently registering a for-profit business as a non-profit. Although I suppose it's hard to say whether the current or your proposed approach would result in tax breaks really happening where we want them.
While I don't necessarily disagree, this seems like it would create a large administrative burden and a strong incentive for businesses to simply lie (or creatively disguise) where there money going. This seems easier than fraudulently registering a for-profit business as a non-profit. Although I suppose it's hard to say whether the current or your proposed approach would result in tax breaks really happening where we want them.
Thank you, and absolutely correct. Also, thanks for differing Mega churches from small churches.
Wow, that is sketchy. Here's more info on IKEA's tax evasion scheme: https://www.fastcompany.com/3035734/ikea-is-a-nonprofit-and-...
avoidance != evasion
Fwiw, the first definition I found for the word evade is “escape or avoid, especially by cleverness or trickery.”
In the US, they are very specific, distinct things.
Tax Evasion[0] is not paying taxes you legally owe. Tax Avoidance[1] is finding ways to owe less tax. Evasion is considered illegal, but Avoidance can practically be considered encouraged, as it's perfectly legal and rewards practitioners with lower tax bills.
[0]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxevasion.asp
[1]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_avoidance.asp
Tax Evasion[0] is not paying taxes you legally owe. Tax Avoidance[1] is finding ways to owe less tax. Evasion is considered illegal, but Avoidance can practically be considered encouraged, as it's perfectly legal and rewards practitioners with lower tax bills.
[0]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxevasion.asp
[1]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_avoidance.asp
>> an practically be considered encouraged
It is openly encouraged. All those little policies, those loopholes, are there to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. Want to funnel profits into live insurance on your employees in order to avoid tax? (Walmart does this) Go right ahead. That bit of tax code is there specifically to encourage the use of life insurance. If it is in the code, it is there because the government wants you to use it.
It is openly encouraged. All those little policies, those loopholes, are there to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. Want to funnel profits into live insurance on your employees in order to avoid tax? (Walmart does this) Go right ahead. That bit of tax code is there specifically to encourage the use of life insurance. If it is in the code, it is there because the government wants you to use it.
Most people reading this are probably aware of the distinction in technical, legal terms. But it doesn't matter, because we're not prosecutors or the IRS.
But I still call it tax evasion colloquially, because I'm just an average Joe who can't prosecute anyone so my legal opinion doesn't matter. My judgement is not whether it's illegal, but whether it's immoral and scummy.
My neighbor, a self-employed painter, claiming his work truck (that he also uses to pull the family camper) as a depreciating business asset is tax avoidance, and I can get behind that. Ikea registering as a nonprofit with 99% overhead is tax evasion, and it's scummy.
Society, as represented by the government, wants charities to exist to assist with causes that society values, like, I suppose, architecture. They encourage this through the tax code. Society also want for-profit businesses to pay their fair share of taxes. This is blatantly a deceitful manipulation of the tax code, whether it's legal or not I don't care, they've abused the law to do things it wasn't intended to do
But I still call it tax evasion colloquially, because I'm just an average Joe who can't prosecute anyone so my legal opinion doesn't matter. My judgement is not whether it's illegal, but whether it's immoral and scummy.
My neighbor, a self-employed painter, claiming his work truck (that he also uses to pull the family camper) as a depreciating business asset is tax avoidance, and I can get behind that. Ikea registering as a nonprofit with 99% overhead is tax evasion, and it's scummy.
Society, as represented by the government, wants charities to exist to assist with causes that society values, like, I suppose, architecture. They encourage this through the tax code. Society also want for-profit businesses to pay their fair share of taxes. This is blatantly a deceitful manipulation of the tax code, whether it's legal or not I don't care, they've abused the law to do things it wasn't intended to do
The difference between avoidance and evasion is very important. One of them is legal and economically encouraged, the other one is an accusation of a crime.
Also, most people learn this in high school. Calling it evasion when it is avoidance only confuses people as to what you mean, and makes people think you don't know what the terms mean.
> My neighbor, a self-employed painter, claiming his work truck (that he also uses to pull the family camper) as a depreciating business asset is tax avoidance, and I can get behind that. Ikea registering as a nonprofit with 99% overhead is tax evasion, and it's scummy.
But objectively speaking, you are aware it's the exact opposite? It's like trying to defend a function in C that causes UB by claiming it works on your machine. Yes, ok, but it is still UB. Your opinion does not change that, or what other people assume you mean when you say things.
Also, most people learn this in high school. Calling it evasion when it is avoidance only confuses people as to what you mean, and makes people think you don't know what the terms mean.
> My neighbor, a self-employed painter, claiming his work truck (that he also uses to pull the family camper) as a depreciating business asset is tax avoidance, and I can get behind that. Ikea registering as a nonprofit with 99% overhead is tax evasion, and it's scummy.
But objectively speaking, you are aware it's the exact opposite? It's like trying to defend a function in C that causes UB by claiming it works on your machine. Yes, ok, but it is still UB. Your opinion does not change that, or what other people assume you mean when you say things.
The exact opposite of tax avoidance is tax evasion? I think not. Tax evasion is legally tax avoidance that has been proven to be illegal. What about tax avoidance that hasn't yet been proven so, or maybe the charge has been thrown out on a technicality, or maybe it rests on exploiting a loop-hole? To me, that might not be tax evasion legally, but surely it's tax evasion in spirit. And since we're not in the middle of some courtroom proceedings, in spirit is how we should understand these words.
Small misunderstanding, he gave two scenarios, one which he claims is tax avoidance, one which he claims is evasion. My "opposite" referred to him swapping which one is by definition either avoidance or evasion.
> And since we're not in the middle of some courtroom proceedings, in spirit is how we should understand these words.
Agreed that one should be charitable with their interpretations. That said, not caring (or knowing) about this important difference between the two terms is a signal that one only has a shallow understanding of these matters. What useful opinion could one hold about how companies should be taxed when one doesn't understand basic economic terms?
edit: changed you->one so as not to seem accusatory
> And since we're not in the middle of some courtroom proceedings, in spirit is how we should understand these words.
Agreed that one should be charitable with their interpretations. That said, not caring (or knowing) about this important difference between the two terms is a signal that one only has a shallow understanding of these matters. What useful opinion could one hold about how companies should be taxed when one doesn't understand basic economic terms?
edit: changed you->one so as not to seem accusatory
[deleted]
The merit in clarity and precision has less to do with your particular occupation or averageness and more to do with raising the floor for intelligent discussion upwards.
One of the things we debate as a society is taxes, because we live with them, pay them and discuss the services and salaries these taxes pay for. It is therefore incumbent upon participants to put their best foot forward in the larger discussion, and equating avoidance with evasion mimics vapid and hollow rhetoric. Else why bother to participate?
It is fair to criticize IKEA and you can certainly stake out a position as an adversary to their tax avoidance scheme without equating it with tax evasion out of a sort of intellectual laziness for one is within the realm of legislative discretion and the other within the real prosecutorial discretion and lead to two entirely different discussions.
One of the things we debate as a society is taxes, because we live with them, pay them and discuss the services and salaries these taxes pay for. It is therefore incumbent upon participants to put their best foot forward in the larger discussion, and equating avoidance with evasion mimics vapid and hollow rhetoric. Else why bother to participate?
It is fair to criticize IKEA and you can certainly stake out a position as an adversary to their tax avoidance scheme without equating it with tax evasion out of a sort of intellectual laziness for one is within the realm of legislative discretion and the other within the real prosecutorial discretion and lead to two entirely different discussions.
[deleted]
> But I still call it tax evasion colloquially, because I'm just an average Joe who can't prosecute anyone so my legal opinion doesn't matter. My judgement is not whether it's illegal, but whether it's immoral and scummy.
Do you contribute to a 401(k)? Deduct home mortgage interest from your taxes? If so, you've participated in legal tax avoidance, too! I don't think either of those are scummy.
Do you contribute to a 401(k)? Deduct home mortgage interest from your taxes? If so, you've participated in legal tax avoidance, too! I don't think either of those are scummy.
That’s right. The US uses its tax system to incentivize behavior. Say the government wants its citizens to buy more electric cars than ICE cars. It can put a ban on selling ICE cars but because the US by and large detests regulation, that has a huge political cost. So instead the government gives you a tax credit for buying a Tesla.
Or the government wants to encourage home ownership, so it makes mortgage interest tax deductible.
Or it wants you to get married so it gives you a tax break for filing jointly.
Or it wants you to live in Alaska so it gives you a tax credit to move there.
Or it wants you to revive an economically insecure geographical area so it gives your business a tax break for operating there.
Or it wants you to hire ex convicts so it gives you a tax credit for each one you hire.
This is a mechanism that is used by the federal and state governments to drive behavior. Arguably churches being tax exempt then is the government encouraging its citizens to participate in church activities because we are only one nation “under god”.
Or the government wants to encourage home ownership, so it makes mortgage interest tax deductible.
Or it wants you to get married so it gives you a tax break for filing jointly.
Or it wants you to live in Alaska so it gives you a tax credit to move there.
Or it wants you to revive an economically insecure geographical area so it gives your business a tax break for operating there.
Or it wants you to hire ex convicts so it gives you a tax credit for each one you hire.
This is a mechanism that is used by the federal and state governments to drive behavior. Arguably churches being tax exempt then is the government encouraging its citizens to participate in church activities because we are only one nation “under god”.
The tax system is effectively an operant-conditioning system, functioning on both corporations and individuals, where the negative stimuli are taxes and the positive stimuli are tax credits.
Seen under this lens, any individual or corporation who is not practicing optimal "tax avoidance" — i.e. doing the things required to qualify for tax credits, and avoiding the things that would cause taxes — is not putting themselves as fully under the thumb of the state's operant-conditioning apparatus as the state would like.
The state wants you to min-max your taxes. The tax system is designed around the assumption that taxable entities will min-max their taxes. If you're not doing it, you're not just leaving free money on the table; you're also being sub-optimally pro-social in the state's (society's?) opinion. "Tax avoidance" is to Western states, as "social credit score" is to China: a score of how well you're living up to the government's expectations for you. Of course they want you to aim for the best score you can!
(I can understand people refusing to minimize their tax burden for ideological reasons — i.e. refusing to be manipulated into certain behaviors by the state. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone espouse this stance. Most people don't even understand that taxes are the state attempting to manipulate you.)
Seen under this lens, any individual or corporation who is not practicing optimal "tax avoidance" — i.e. doing the things required to qualify for tax credits, and avoiding the things that would cause taxes — is not putting themselves as fully under the thumb of the state's operant-conditioning apparatus as the state would like.
The state wants you to min-max your taxes. The tax system is designed around the assumption that taxable entities will min-max their taxes. If you're not doing it, you're not just leaving free money on the table; you're also being sub-optimally pro-social in the state's (society's?) opinion. "Tax avoidance" is to Western states, as "social credit score" is to China: a score of how well you're living up to the government's expectations for you. Of course they want you to aim for the best score you can!
(I can understand people refusing to minimize their tax burden for ideological reasons — i.e. refusing to be manipulated into certain behaviors by the state. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone espouse this stance. Most people don't even understand that taxes are the state attempting to manipulate you.)
"Tax evasion" refers to illegal actions to indeed evade tax lawfully due.
"Tax avoidance" is the perfectly legal practice of (more or less aggressively) minimising the amount of tax lawfully due.
Everyone engages in tax avoidance at least to a degree.
"Tax avoidance" is the perfectly legal practice of (more or less aggressively) minimising the amount of tax lawfully due.
Everyone engages in tax avoidance at least to a degree.
People don’t like thinking this way... it’s difficult for a lot of people to grasp, for example, that if they have children and claim those children as a deduction they are thereby avoiding federal income taxes. Individuals avail themselves of the parts of the tax code that benefit them just like Big Corps do. You are not required to claim offspring as a deduction, so I guess by the logic of many people in this thread anyone who does is scummy because they are avoiding taxes? Seems kooky.
Obligatory quote from Judge Learned Hand:
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
I most people wouldn't your example tax avoidance. That deduction is meant for that particular situation and claiming it is to be expected. Exploiting some complicated loop-hole is something else entirely. That's what most people would label as tax avoidance.
You are making a distinction that doesn't exist. What you might consider a complicated loophole might be what every company with a CPA considers standard practice. Just because it's not obvious to a layman doesn't mean it's not the obvious standard operating procedure for corporate taxes. They are both "avoidance" in the same way, which is taking advantage of specific provisions that benefit that tax paying entity.
It's the same with the mortgage interest deduction. You avoid some level of taxes as a homeowner by deducting your mortgage interest. Until you have a house and need to do so, it may seem like some weird loop-hole in the taxes, and when you have a house and use it, it's just something you do every year.
Don't expect a multi-national company worth hundreds of millions or billions to view the tax system as being as opaque and complicated as it seems to an individual. Their situation is vastly more complicated than an individuals, and their capability to navigate the tax system is vastly higher as well with multiple CPAs on staff or a large firm hired, so they can take advantage of those provisions put into the system specifically for them.
It's the same with the mortgage interest deduction. You avoid some level of taxes as a homeowner by deducting your mortgage interest. Until you have a house and need to do so, it may seem like some weird loop-hole in the taxes, and when you have a house and use it, it's just something you do every year.
Don't expect a multi-national company worth hundreds of millions or billions to view the tax system as being as opaque and complicated as it seems to an individual. Their situation is vastly more complicated than an individuals, and their capability to navigate the tax system is vastly higher as well with multiple CPAs on staff or a large firm hired, so they can take advantage of those provisions put into the system specifically for them.
That is effectively my point. It may be worth reassessing your perspectives if you are comfortable saying “when I use the tax code to my benefit, it is okay” but “when he uses the tax code to his benefit, it is not okay.” Fundamentally it is the same thing. The only difference is the scale. I’m open to arguments as to why this conclusion is correct, but it really seems like the classic case of hating on Big Corps because they are big, not because they are doing something bad (which they often do, but not in this case. To my mind).
[deleted]
We would all be better off if corporate taxes were reduced to low single digits in favor of regular individual income tax and VAT bit the optics aren't good so it's never gonna happen except if you're big enough to have creative accountants and political/economic clout like Ikea and others.
I've held that point of view, but heard something recently that gave me pause: The high tax rates of the 1960's were the reason that companies paid their employees more and/or invested in research, producing things like Bell Labs.
The reasoning was that when corporate tax rates are low companies will use the extra money to play financial games, and when corporate tax rates are high companies know they are better of off giving the money to retain/recruit good employees or spending it on research to grow the business instead.
The reasoning was that when corporate tax rates are low companies will use the extra money to play financial games, and when corporate tax rates are high companies know they are better of off giving the money to retain/recruit good employees or spending it on research to grow the business instead.
I'm not sure I entirely buy that. Sector monopolies were much more common around that time too which makes broader research investments easier to recuperate and there was also strong market incentives to do so because the bottom kept getting eaten up by foreign and particularly asian manufactuerers.
Its amusing and depressing that we are in a situation where all experts, from across the political spectrum, can agree on what a more optimal tax system would be. Yet the structure of our democracy basically makes a more optimal solution impossible.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/499490275
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/499490275
If you respect freedom and tolerance of religion, I will hold you to respect my worship space in the IKEA showroom. Plywood is my god and IKEA is his messenger. For this reason, I think it's perfectly fair that IKEA gets the same treatment as any Church. If I ever open my own business, I will make sure to register is a non-profit religious organization as well. If you don't like the loophole, take it out of legislation -- everything here is above board, legally speaking.
What I don't understand is how Inter Ikea Systems (the company that holds the rights to the Ikea concept, that is paid by the nonprofit) avoids having to pay taxes.
There’s plenty of blog articles and YouTube videos out there that break it down, it’s quite elaborate if memory serves.
Disable your Javascript and then check out this 2006 Economist article and your mind will be blown (maybe):
https://web.archive.org/web/20201112042116/https://www.econo...
https://web.archive.org/web/20201112042116/https://www.econo...
[deleted]
In general I tend to dislike IKEA. But I'd totally approve avoiding taxes to preserve the forest (in case that's actually what they did).
> I never understood why people hate IKEA.
Did you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Criticisms ? There seems to be many reasons to dislike the company, even as a happy customer.
One thing that stuck with me is this:
"The IKEA group has a complex corporate structure, which members of the European Parliament have alleged was designed to avoid over €1 billion in tax payments over the 2009–2014 period."
It seems easy to sell cheaper if you just pay less taxes.
I'm not hating IKEA, but it's obviously not black or white.
Did you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Criticisms ? There seems to be many reasons to dislike the company, even as a happy customer.
One thing that stuck with me is this:
"The IKEA group has a complex corporate structure, which members of the European Parliament have alleged was designed to avoid over €1 billion in tax payments over the 2009–2014 period."
It seems easy to sell cheaper if you just pay less taxes.
I'm not hating IKEA, but it's obviously not black or white.
That’s a problem of unnecessarily complicated tax laws.
IKEA also has a will to abuse them to a degree that their peers don’t, and we should judge them as less ethical for it.
Which degree should we start judging at?
When people deduct taxes for donations to universities to increase the odds of their child being accepted?
When people deduct taxes for charity to their church/temple/organization/other tribe in order to direct resources in a way that might benefit them more directly versus the nation as a whole?
It's either legal or it's not. If you want the "abuse" to stop, then elect the legislators that will make the loopholes illegal.
When people deduct taxes for donations to universities to increase the odds of their child being accepted?
When people deduct taxes for charity to their church/temple/organization/other tribe in order to direct resources in a way that might benefit them more directly versus the nation as a whole?
It's either legal or it's not. If you want the "abuse" to stop, then elect the legislators that will make the loopholes illegal.
You seem to be making the argument that if it’s legal, it’s not immoral. I reject this argument completely. By necessity the law does not (and cannot) cover every single aspect of human behavior. Just because what IKEA is doing is legal does not make it right. Nor is it inappropriate for a private citizen to condemn behavior they disapprove of, whether or not it’s legal.
As far as where the ethical line is, that is a very complicated subject not conducive to generic discussion. But I am extremely certain that “we configured our multi-billion dollar international furniture business as a non-profit” is certainly well on the wrong side of the line. We can discuss other scenarios in their appropriate context, but the existence of other grey areas does not excuse the unethical behavior of IKEA here.
I do wish legislators would get their <explicative deleted> together and fix the tax code so that IKEA will pay their fair share, but condemning them for their behavior is a necessary prerequisite to that change actually happening. One can’t chastise other citizens for complaining about unethical behavior and suggest that instead someone else should change the law, that makes literally no sense. I have no direct capability to change the law, and it’s incoherent of you to tell me to stop complaining about it until the law is changed.
As far as where the ethical line is, that is a very complicated subject not conducive to generic discussion. But I am extremely certain that “we configured our multi-billion dollar international furniture business as a non-profit” is certainly well on the wrong side of the line. We can discuss other scenarios in their appropriate context, but the existence of other grey areas does not excuse the unethical behavior of IKEA here.
I do wish legislators would get their <explicative deleted> together and fix the tax code so that IKEA will pay their fair share, but condemning them for their behavior is a necessary prerequisite to that change actually happening. One can’t chastise other citizens for complaining about unethical behavior and suggest that instead someone else should change the law, that makes literally no sense. I have no direct capability to change the law, and it’s incoherent of you to tell me to stop complaining about it until the law is changed.
>You seem to be making the argument that if it’s legal, it’s not immoral.
Yes, I would say that legally reducing one's taxes is not immoral.
>By necessity the law does not (and cannot) cover every single aspect of human behavior.
Yes, but in the case of tax law, the complications are created specifically to allow loopholes, and/or to allow the government to not have to transparently state costs. I would posit that any goal of tax deductions is more transparently accomplished by the government spending the cash outright and having to account for it.
>Just because what IKEA is doing is legal does not make it right.
In the context of tax law, I think it's all fair game. If the people want to close loopholes, then close them for everyone. As a business, I'm going to do whatever I need to maintain a competitive advantage. As a voter, I'm going to support legislation that levies taxes according to the quality of life I think people should have in society.
Yes, I would say that legally reducing one's taxes is not immoral.
>By necessity the law does not (and cannot) cover every single aspect of human behavior.
Yes, but in the case of tax law, the complications are created specifically to allow loopholes, and/or to allow the government to not have to transparently state costs. I would posit that any goal of tax deductions is more transparently accomplished by the government spending the cash outright and having to account for it.
>Just because what IKEA is doing is legal does not make it right.
In the context of tax law, I think it's all fair game. If the people want to close loopholes, then close them for everyone. As a business, I'm going to do whatever I need to maintain a competitive advantage. As a voter, I'm going to support legislation that levies taxes according to the quality of life I think people should have in society.
> Yes, I would say that legally reducing one's taxes is not immoral
No point in continuing this conversation then.
No point in continuing this conversation then.
>Which degree should we start judging at?
Morality doesn't need to be codified into exact terms in order to be relevant. At what point does killing become a crime? When you kill an ant for no reason? When you kill an animal for food? Or when you kill another human for survival? Intuitively I know the differences. But articulating my intuition into words can lead to loop holes so I'd rather not.
The moral module in your mind is not perfect but when looking at Ikea, it's telling me Ikea is an getting an unfair advantage with this loop hole and it's ethically wrong. That's enough for most people.
>It's either legal or it's not. If you want the "abuse" to stop, then elect the legislators that will make the loopholes illegal.
You don't need a law to tell the difference from right and wrong and nothing is as simple as electing the right person to make things right again. Who do I elect to save dying infrastructure in the US? Who do I elect to stop corporations from paying less taxes than me? It's not so clear cut, what I'm voting for or how to fix this.
I don't know where you're reasoning comes from, but one thing is for sure. I'd share your exact attitude if I'm a beneficiary of said loop holes in laws. My mind would twist the obvious logic to justify my own crimes if I myself were the ass hole that was committing them.
Morality doesn't need to be codified into exact terms in order to be relevant. At what point does killing become a crime? When you kill an ant for no reason? When you kill an animal for food? Or when you kill another human for survival? Intuitively I know the differences. But articulating my intuition into words can lead to loop holes so I'd rather not.
The moral module in your mind is not perfect but when looking at Ikea, it's telling me Ikea is an getting an unfair advantage with this loop hole and it's ethically wrong. That's enough for most people.
>It's either legal or it's not. If you want the "abuse" to stop, then elect the legislators that will make the loopholes illegal.
You don't need a law to tell the difference from right and wrong and nothing is as simple as electing the right person to make things right again. Who do I elect to save dying infrastructure in the US? Who do I elect to stop corporations from paying less taxes than me? It's not so clear cut, what I'm voting for or how to fix this.
I don't know where you're reasoning comes from, but one thing is for sure. I'd share your exact attitude if I'm a beneficiary of said loop holes in laws. My mind would twist the obvious logic to justify my own crimes if I myself were the ass hole that was committing them.
>You don't need a law to tell the difference from right and wrong and nothing is as simple as electing the right person to make things right again.
A business that tries to do the "right" thing in a system that allows everyone else to do the "wrong" thing, will not survive.
Is it wrong to not offer a new mother sufficient time to bond with her newborn and breastfeed her newborn for a minimum year per the recommendation of medical research? Yet almost no employers in the US, and especially no employers of lower paid workers can afford to give a mother proper time for maternity leave or to pump breastmilk. The margins are so cutthroat that the business would not exist anymore.
I'm not saying this is comparable to IKEA's tax avoidance, or that IKEA would cease to exist if it didn't do what it was doing. But almost all businesses are doing the "wrong" thing, some more than others, but I won't blame them if they're playing within the rules.
However, if IKEA is then using its proceeds to lobby politicians to continue the existence of a tax code that allows it to steal from society, I do consider that morally repugnant and would judge IKEA negatively for that.
In my new mother not being able to breastfeed scenario, I'm not going to blame the individual business for only giving 15 min of break time. I'm going to blame the government, which only forced employers to give 15 minute breaks for pumping milk, which anyone who has ever pumped milk would tell you is an impossibly short time to travel to the break room, setup supplies, pump milk, store it, and go back to work.
I myself take advantage of various tax loopholes, such as the 1031 tax exchange. However, I use it to keep up with my competition, and further, I contribute and lobby those who I can to remove these tax loopholes.
A business that tries to do the "right" thing in a system that allows everyone else to do the "wrong" thing, will not survive.
Is it wrong to not offer a new mother sufficient time to bond with her newborn and breastfeed her newborn for a minimum year per the recommendation of medical research? Yet almost no employers in the US, and especially no employers of lower paid workers can afford to give a mother proper time for maternity leave or to pump breastmilk. The margins are so cutthroat that the business would not exist anymore.
I'm not saying this is comparable to IKEA's tax avoidance, or that IKEA would cease to exist if it didn't do what it was doing. But almost all businesses are doing the "wrong" thing, some more than others, but I won't blame them if they're playing within the rules.
However, if IKEA is then using its proceeds to lobby politicians to continue the existence of a tax code that allows it to steal from society, I do consider that morally repugnant and would judge IKEA negatively for that.
In my new mother not being able to breastfeed scenario, I'm not going to blame the individual business for only giving 15 min of break time. I'm going to blame the government, which only forced employers to give 15 minute breaks for pumping milk, which anyone who has ever pumped milk would tell you is an impossibly short time to travel to the break room, setup supplies, pump milk, store it, and go back to work.
I myself take advantage of various tax loopholes, such as the 1031 tax exchange. However, I use it to keep up with my competition, and further, I contribute and lobby those who I can to remove these tax loopholes.
Your initial argument painted the problem as a moral conundrum questioning where we draw "lines." I cannot agree with this sentiment. Codifying such intuitions into axiomatic rules is challenging but classifying a given situation without being aware of the codified rules is simple and intuitive.
As for your new argument, this is something I can partially agree with. If the landscape allows for such immoral behavior and thereby as a consequence requires everyone to adopt the same immoral behavior as a means to survive and stay competitive then I can't fully blame you for your actions.
That does not fully excuse it though. A Man dying of starvation may have no choice but to kill and eat his own child. The situation does not absolve the man of all guilt. Obviously, your situation is not as extreme, but the similarity it shares with you and your circumstances is the fact that you having no choice does not make you completely innocent. Apologies to everyone reading for the extreme example, the extremeness of the example helps fully elucidate the moral ambiguity associated with hard choices.
Also self justification flies far, people will come up with all kinds of excuses to give merit to their own actions. Is exploiting those loopholes truly absolutely necessary for survival? Or is it something you tell yourself without really knowing the full details? I don't know your exact case, but the above is a common trope people use to lie to themselves. People will refuse to look deeper into certain details that make them uncomfortable so they assume a reality that best justifies their actions.
As for your new argument, this is something I can partially agree with. If the landscape allows for such immoral behavior and thereby as a consequence requires everyone to adopt the same immoral behavior as a means to survive and stay competitive then I can't fully blame you for your actions.
That does not fully excuse it though. A Man dying of starvation may have no choice but to kill and eat his own child. The situation does not absolve the man of all guilt. Obviously, your situation is not as extreme, but the similarity it shares with you and your circumstances is the fact that you having no choice does not make you completely innocent. Apologies to everyone reading for the extreme example, the extremeness of the example helps fully elucidate the moral ambiguity associated with hard choices.
Also self justification flies far, people will come up with all kinds of excuses to give merit to their own actions. Is exploiting those loopholes truly absolutely necessary for survival? Or is it something you tell yourself without really knowing the full details? I don't know your exact case, but the above is a common trope people use to lie to themselves. People will refuse to look deeper into certain details that make them uncomfortable so they assume a reality that best justifies their actions.
'abuse' is a subjective word, you could have left off the 'ab' and you sentence would still be correct, arguably more correct. Also, why not consider that by using the complex web of tax laws to their advantage allows them to sell products at a lower price. This allows folks with lower incomes to enjoy similar products to those who can afford getting their stuff from more posh places. One could judge Ikea to be more ethical for this practice.
This is the same kind of mental gymnastics that gave us trickle down economics.
The societal ethics, morality and the spirit of the law should all be taken into account when judging behaviour. Exploiting tax structures in order to conceal income is absolutely immoral and shouldn't be tolerated.
This is especially egregious when the tax loopholes are effectively gated behind behing a multi-national corporation. It leads to even greater concentrations of wealth in the hands of these companies which damages the health of the local markets they operate in.
The societal ethics, morality and the spirit of the law should all be taken into account when judging behaviour. Exploiting tax structures in order to conceal income is absolutely immoral and shouldn't be tolerated.
This is especially egregious when the tax loopholes are effectively gated behind behing a multi-national corporation. It leads to even greater concentrations of wealth in the hands of these companies which damages the health of the local markets they operate in.
To be fair, trickle down economics is just fantasy. Tax avoidance is something everyone with a 401k does and is encouraged by the tax code.
If there's something unique about what they're doing, especially as a result of them lobbying for certain parts of the tax code, then I can see it being judged harshly.
If anyone can do what they're doing, then I don't see it as particularly negative.
If there's something unique about what they're doing, especially as a result of them lobbying for certain parts of the tax code, then I can see it being judged harshly.
If anyone can do what they're doing, then I don't see it as particularly negative.
A 401k has the specific purpose of helping individuals fund their retirement years, something society has agreed is worth providing some benefit for. There is an element of intention to the exemption and it serves a specific purpose.
> If anyone can do what they're doing, then I don't see it as particularly negative.
Typically not just anyone can do this, smaller firms do not have the resources set-up these schemes. Smaller firms are also much more likely to be slapped down by the government. The result of this is that larger corporations are further advantaged.
I think attempting to equate personal and corporate taxation is a mistake. Corporations are increasingly transnational in a way that people cannot be, and they are leveraging not just local tax codes, but often established treaties and differences between national tax codes that were introduced with different intent.
> If anyone can do what they're doing, then I don't see it as particularly negative.
Typically not just anyone can do this, smaller firms do not have the resources set-up these schemes. Smaller firms are also much more likely to be slapped down by the government. The result of this is that larger corporations are further advantaged.
I think attempting to equate personal and corporate taxation is a mistake. Corporations are increasingly transnational in a way that people cannot be, and they are leveraging not just local tax codes, but often established treaties and differences between national tax codes that were introduced with different intent.
In the same way that a 401k is set up for a specific purpose, IKEA's foundation was also set up for a very specific purpose. If anything, the purpose was criticized as being overly narrow, and they recently updated it to be more broad.
Whether a firm can do something similar depends on the specifics. I'm not sure how large IKEA was when they set up their corporate structure in the early 80s, but I doubt they were as large as they are today.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201112042116if_/https://www.ec...
I'm not trying to equate personal and corporate taxation though. If IKEA wants to funnel a large portion of their profits into a foundation to control themselves rather than paying taxes to the government instead, I don't see how that is tax avoidance. Many other foundations around the world are set up so the controlling interests of companies can choose how to disperse money instead paying taxes and letting the government choose how to disperse it. Not that there's anything wrong with that either, but having a corporation designed to minimize taxes by funneling profits into a foundation doesn't scream tax avoidance to me.
With that said, there could be other aspects of their corporate structure that I'm not aware of, but like I said, if other companies can also implement the same structure, even if it's across national boundaries, I don't see it as being particularly unethical. Although if someone believed for instance that companies should always repatriate all profits, then I could see how they would think this is unethical, so as usual YMMV.
Edit - To put it another way, there don't seem to be laws restricting investment firms from buying controlling interests in companies to manipulate asset prices/consumer behavior, which to me is far more detrimental than someone who may be pathologically frugal deciding they want to minimize taxes by setting up a complicated corporate structure with a foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar_Kamprad#Personal_life
Whether a firm can do something similar depends on the specifics. I'm not sure how large IKEA was when they set up their corporate structure in the early 80s, but I doubt they were as large as they are today.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201112042116if_/https://www.ec...
I'm not trying to equate personal and corporate taxation though. If IKEA wants to funnel a large portion of their profits into a foundation to control themselves rather than paying taxes to the government instead, I don't see how that is tax avoidance. Many other foundations around the world are set up so the controlling interests of companies can choose how to disperse money instead paying taxes and letting the government choose how to disperse it. Not that there's anything wrong with that either, but having a corporation designed to minimize taxes by funneling profits into a foundation doesn't scream tax avoidance to me.
With that said, there could be other aspects of their corporate structure that I'm not aware of, but like I said, if other companies can also implement the same structure, even if it's across national boundaries, I don't see it as being particularly unethical. Although if someone believed for instance that companies should always repatriate all profits, then I could see how they would think this is unethical, so as usual YMMV.
Edit - To put it another way, there don't seem to be laws restricting investment firms from buying controlling interests in companies to manipulate asset prices/consumer behavior, which to me is far more detrimental than someone who may be pathologically frugal deciding they want to minimize taxes by setting up a complicated corporate structure with a foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar_Kamprad#Personal_life
> In the same way that a 401k is set up for a specific purpose, IKEA's foundation was also set up for a very specific purpose. If anything, the purpose was criticized as being overly narrow, and they recently updated it to be more broad.
Non-profit taxation laws were not set up with the intent of allowing for profit businesses to avoid taxation. That doesn't mean that it wasn't the outcome.
> Edit - To put it another way, there don't seem to be laws restricting investment firms from buying controlling interests in companies to manipulate asset prices/consumer behavior, which to me is far more detrimental than someone who may be pathologically frugal deciding they want to minimize taxes by setting up a complicated corporate structure with a foundation.
The existence of a worse scenario doesn't prevent us dealing with the current one.
Non-profit taxation laws were not set up with the intent of allowing for profit businesses to avoid taxation. That doesn't mean that it wasn't the outcome.
> Edit - To put it another way, there don't seem to be laws restricting investment firms from buying controlling interests in companies to manipulate asset prices/consumer behavior, which to me is far more detrimental than someone who may be pathologically frugal deciding they want to minimize taxes by setting up a complicated corporate structure with a foundation.
The existence of a worse scenario doesn't prevent us dealing with the current one.
That's true, but practically speaking, that's the outcome when for profit company can create a foundation. Kind of like 401k rollovers to an IRA.
The worse scenario doesn't preclude us from addressing less bad scenarios, but I think we should focus more time and effort on that than on reforming the laws around foundations and non-profits, and by we I mean HN readers and the general public.
The worse scenario doesn't preclude us from addressing less bad scenarios, but I think we should focus more time and effort on that than on reforming the laws around foundations and non-profits, and by we I mean HN readers and the general public.
I guess it depends on the ratio of effort to reward.
Personally I think arguing for levelling the playing field through tax reform would lead to quicker/easier results than arguing for altering the ways in which companies may invest in one another but that could just be because I've been involved in less discussion around the latter issue.
Personally I think arguing for levelling the playing field through tax reform would lead to quicker/easier results than arguing for altering the ways in which companies may invest in one another but that could just be because I've been involved in less discussion around the latter issue.
>A 401k has the specific purpose of helping individuals fund their retirement years, something society has agreed is worth providing some benefit for. There is an element of intention to the exemption and it serves a specific purpose.
A 401k has the specific purpose of helping large businesses maintain a competitive advantage over small businesses. If the government wanted to help individuals fund their retirement years, then there is no reason to involve employers in the tax code. They could simply issue the same rules and contribution limits for IRAs.
But they don't. They punish you if you're employed by an employer that doesn't offer a 401k, by setting your contribution limit to a paltry $6k while 401k participants get tens of thousands, and your contribution limit is zero if your spouse is eligible for a 401k and your income is over a certain amount.
A 401k has the specific purpose of helping large businesses maintain a competitive advantage over small businesses. If the government wanted to help individuals fund their retirement years, then there is no reason to involve employers in the tax code. They could simply issue the same rules and contribution limits for IRAs.
But they don't. They punish you if you're employed by an employer that doesn't offer a 401k, by setting your contribution limit to a paltry $6k while 401k participants get tens of thousands, and your contribution limit is zero if your spouse is eligible for a 401k and your income is over a certain amount.
While there are certainly issues in the tax code, you’re absolutely just making up the history and intent of the 401k. The 401k was not setup to help big business, quite the opposite. They were setup as an explicit alternative to the pension systems that historically were how employees retired, and pensions absolutely favor large companies that can afford them. 401k programs allow much more employee choice and mobility, which they’ve arguably achieved.
Whatever the history is, it's been 40+ years since it started, and legislators have subsequently gone through a lot of effort to create a two tier system (IRAs vs 401k) which heavily favors employees of large businesses than can afford to pay high wages.
When something so blatantly tilted towards the rich, white collar world exists, and can so easily be fixed (by simply matching the terms of the IRA to the 401k), and has not been fixed for over 4 decades, I then take it to be intentional.
When something so blatantly tilted towards the rich, white collar world exists, and can so easily be fixed (by simply matching the terms of the IRA to the 401k), and has not been fixed for over 4 decades, I then take it to be intentional.
Immoral or shrewd?
It's possible to be technically correct but still be an asshole.
Making use of the ability to employ considerable resources to reduce your corporation's tax burden in ways that organisations without those resources cannot is absolutely a violation of the social contract surrounding taxation, which typically follows the convention that those who profit the most from society should return the most. As a result it's no longer shrewd but immoral.
Making use of the ability to employ considerable resources to reduce your corporation's tax burden in ways that organisations without those resources cannot is absolutely a violation of the social contract surrounding taxation, which typically follows the convention that those who profit the most from society should return the most. As a result it's no longer shrewd but immoral.
Even if the tax structure they're using enables them to hire more employees so those employees can survive more comfortably?
That assumes that they need more employees in the first place. Even then I don't believe companies hiring more employees is necessarily a good thing, unless you believe in work for work's sake.
Robust corporate taxation pays for decent social safety nets/UBI, such that people aren't at the mercy of the whims of whatever mega-corp they're dependent upon for survival. This has the added benefit of naturally improving wages and worker's rights, while allowing for the removal of a minimum wage.
It also has the added benefit of decoupling artistic expression from corporate funding.
Robust corporate taxation pays for decent social safety nets/UBI, such that people aren't at the mercy of the whims of whatever mega-corp they're dependent upon for survival. This has the added benefit of naturally improving wages and worker's rights, while allowing for the removal of a minimum wage.
It also has the added benefit of decoupling artistic expression from corporate funding.
Do you think your arguments against the tax code and increased employment presuppose a more perfect world than we have and increased employment could be considered an intermediate step along the way?
That is, right now, we don't have UBI and the safety net, at least in the US, is very weak, so employment and decreased unemployment _are_ necessary for the time being and the ideal state described here is many more steps away than the current status quo.
That is, right now, we don't have UBI and the safety net, at least in the US, is very weak, so employment and decreased unemployment _are_ necessary for the time being and the ideal state described here is many more steps away than the current status quo.
I think increased employment would have a negative effect on the road to that more perfect world by masking the underlying issues.
Pursuing increased employment as the goal distracts from the real changes that have to be made in order to facilitate those social safety nets, since these inevitably require raising taxes in order to fund them.
The efficacy of job creation through tax cuts is also a matter of debate. This article[1] (which appears fairly well sourced) seems to imply that the expansion of unemployment benefits is at least as effective as cutting corporate taxes and potentially more so when taxes are already low.
[1] https://www.thebalance.com/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs-3306325
Pursuing increased employment as the goal distracts from the real changes that have to be made in order to facilitate those social safety nets, since these inevitably require raising taxes in order to fund them.
The efficacy of job creation through tax cuts is also a matter of debate. This article[1] (which appears fairly well sourced) seems to imply that the expansion of unemployment benefits is at least as effective as cutting corporate taxes and potentially more so when taxes are already low.
[1] https://www.thebalance.com/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs-3306325
> Also, why not consider that by using the complex web of tax laws to their advantage allows them to sell products at a lower price.
Don't business taxes (whether US taxes on profits or European VAT) ignore the costs of goods?
Don't business taxes (whether US taxes on profits or European VAT) ignore the costs of goods?
There's simply no other furniture retailer the size of IKEA, by far. So we actually don't have anyone else to compare to.
Someone defending IKEA could argue that if companies like Walmart of Target, which I think are the closest competitors to IKEA, were in the same position they would do even more nefarious tax evasion. It's a "lesser evil" argument but it does ring kind of true.
Someone defending IKEA could argue that if companies like Walmart of Target, which I think are the closest competitors to IKEA, were in the same position they would do even more nefarious tax evasion. It's a "lesser evil" argument but it does ring kind of true.
Agreed! Complexity introduces bugs and here that means loop holes.
The problem is the fact that they are willing to do shady things like that to avoid taxes. The fact that they're allowed to do that is a bug in the law, yes, but doesn't take any of their blame away.
It is pretty simple that businesses have to pay more taxes than non-profits. Unethical businesses mususing this for tax evasion force legislation to create more complex laws to prevent such tricks.
>It is pretty simple that businesses have to pay more taxes than non-profits.
The simple thing would be to have every organization have the same tax rules, and then all tricks are prevented.
Once you start getting into what is and isn't for profit, and what is and isn't charity, is when things become complicated. Should megachurches where the leader flies in a private plane be taxed differently than a business? Should Scientologists get a tax break?
The simple thing would be to have every organization have the same tax rules, and then all tricks are prevented.
Once you start getting into what is and isn't for profit, and what is and isn't charity, is when things become complicated. Should megachurches where the leader flies in a private plane be taxed differently than a business? Should Scientologists get a tax break?
The "don't hate the player hate the game" approach only works if the player has no influence on the game.
Corporations and politics are not two separate entity that act independently.
Corporations and politics are not two separate entity that act independently.
[deleted]
That's a problem of companies trying to avoid paying taxes. Something that worker class can't do or solve.
Gotta love victim blaming. The problem isn't complicated tax laws, the problem is that the governments making them are national entities that have to answer to their national voting population and companies like IKEA are international entities, so have a very easy time to do stuff that is inside the letter but outside the spirit of the laws of the various countries.
> The problem isn't complicated tax laws
> have a very easy time to do stuff that is inside the letter but outside the spirit of the laws
That's like saying "My buggy spaghetti code isn't the problem, the user should just never do something that hits an edge case. My code doesn't need to change"
> have a very easy time to do stuff that is inside the letter but outside the spirit of the laws
That's like saying "My buggy spaghetti code isn't the problem, the user should just never do something that hits an edge case. My code doesn't need to change"
No, it is not about one persons code, which was exactly my point.
This is an issue caused by the European Parliament.
I'm sure if they want to stop this behaviour they could write some laws.
Afaik they can't. The European Commission can. Which is not elected.
True, thanks for mentioning my mistake.
They are not elected but we can still write to our MEP and National government to demand that things changes.
Taxation is handled by the member states, not EU. This means that many states act as the lowest bidder (e.g Ireland) to attract foreign companies.
I'm not sure how "complies precisely with the tax law as it exists" is a point against anyone.
Surely if you believe the state is entitled to levy taxes, then you wish for people to obey the laws they put in place dictating them, do you not?
This idea "people should be paying what we want, not what we specifically legislated" is insane to me. If people aren't to comply with the law as written, what should they be doing?
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Surely if you believe the state is entitled to levy taxes, then you wish for people to obey the laws they put in place dictating them, do you not?
This idea "people should be paying what we want, not what we specifically legislated" is insane to me. If people aren't to comply with the law as written, what should they be doing?
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
There's been an ongoing investigation of IKEA by the EU Commission for the past several years because they believe IKEA is not complying precisely with the tax law as it exists.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ikea-ab-taxavoidance-e...
https://www.tax-news.com/news/EU_Expands_Investigation_Into_...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ikea-ab-taxavoidance-e...
https://www.tax-news.com/news/EU_Expands_Investigation_Into_...
Were they convicted of any wrongdoing?
Easy example: Some entities are exempt from taxes, because they are not there to enrich individuals, but to profit a higher cause. Like Amnesty International. I think it is great that we exempt AI from paying taxes. Now it might be very difficult to write legislation that precisely encodes the difference between AI and McDonalds. After all, McDonalds funds children hospitals! If McDonalds tries to avoid taxes by trying to look like a NGO, the LEAST we can to is to be outraged and punish them as customers - because the only solution for the legislator might be to make AI pay taxes as well.
As a soccer player, it might be a good move to fall to the ground when the ref cannot see you. But you are an asshole if you do it. The rules of the game are fine, the player is an asshole.
Maybe you should consider the hate of the public just as part of the game these companies are trying to play?
As a soccer player, it might be a good move to fall to the ground when the ref cannot see you. But you are an asshole if you do it. The rules of the game are fine, the player is an asshole.
Maybe you should consider the hate of the public just as part of the game these companies are trying to play?
> Now it might be very difficult to write legislation that precisely encodes the difference between AI and McDonalds.
Perhaps that's because you're trying to legislate emotion instead of an objective difference.
If the rules should apply to one type of organization and not another (your "higher purpose" opinion), then it should be straightforward to unambiguously describe the difference in law: a bright line test. If you cannot, it's likely you're just trying to encode your own subjective personal dictatorial preferences into the law, which is contrary to the values of a society that believes in the rule of law.
It's possible that you just don't like McDs, or do like AI. That's fine, but trying to shape tax law based on your own personal value judgements is contrary to the ideas of equal application of the law to all members of society. This is sort of the "I know it when I see it" approach, and it's, in my view, a somewhat dishonest way to try to legislate personal morality into the public sphere.
Perhaps that's because you're trying to legislate emotion instead of an objective difference.
If the rules should apply to one type of organization and not another (your "higher purpose" opinion), then it should be straightforward to unambiguously describe the difference in law: a bright line test. If you cannot, it's likely you're just trying to encode your own subjective personal dictatorial preferences into the law, which is contrary to the values of a society that believes in the rule of law.
It's possible that you just don't like McDs, or do like AI. That's fine, but trying to shape tax law based on your own personal value judgements is contrary to the ideas of equal application of the law to all members of society. This is sort of the "I know it when I see it" approach, and it's, in my view, a somewhat dishonest way to try to legislate personal morality into the public sphere.
>the only solution for the legislator might be to make AI pay taxes as well.
What taxes would AI pay? They're not selling items for profit. The only change that would need to happen is removing the ability to deduct charitable contributions from taxable income. I don't see any problem with that. People can still donate to AI with after tax income.
What taxes would AI pay? They're not selling items for profit. The only change that would need to happen is removing the ability to deduct charitable contributions from taxable income. I don't see any problem with that. People can still donate to AI with after tax income.
> They're not selling items for profit.
https://shop.amnestyusa.org/
Not-for-profit firms make profits all of the time, and while I'm not familiar with UK tax codes, at least in the US the only fuzzy line is that pursuit of profits not be the end goal... quite a few "non-profits", such as hospitals, sell a large number of services for a profit!
https://shop.amnestyusa.org/
Not-for-profit firms make profits all of the time, and while I'm not familiar with UK tax codes, at least in the US the only fuzzy line is that pursuit of profits not be the end goal... quite a few "non-profits", such as hospitals, sell a large number of services for a profit!
I didn’t know amnesty sold things. I meant that AI doesn’t sell any products and services, like a hospital or business would, therefore AI wouldn’t have income to tax anyway. But I guess they do sell some items for brand awareness/raising funds, and I think treating it like any other business is appropriate to prevent a loophole from existing.
No bicycle parking, at the store I visit.
If they are using the money saved on taxes to sell their products cheaper, then it is not themselves (only) that they are enriching thereby, but (also) you and I and everyone else who buys IKEA products. The consumers end up being the ones paying less money into governmental coffers.
Not sure where you're from, but round here taxes are used for the infrastructure that private business need to have a market - schools, roads, health care and sometimes even direct investments in private businesses. The two start-ups I've been working for in the past have been helped off the ground by both government and EU money.
If Ikea are using elaborate company structures to pay less tax than other furniture stores, they are stealing from the societies that enable them to thrive. Especially if they are using that advantage to depress prices.
If Ikea are using elaborate company structures to pay less tax than other furniture stores, they are stealing from the societies that enable them to thrive. Especially if they are using that advantage to depress prices.
I think IKEA represents plastic consumerism to people. A lot of people feel alienated from the modern world and IKEA registers as fake and therefore alienating. Mass produced, cheap culture with a copy in every house. The best criticisms of these kinds of "problems" are in pop art, as opposed to rational discourse.
Fight Club is the canonical example. The film picks IKEA to symbolize the enemy and justification for subversive nihilism ... it resonated well. "Friends" features IKEA the alienation theme as well. Phoebe thinks she has an antique apothecary table. You can smell the history of opium and medicinal brews. Turns out it's IKEA. She has a similar storyline with Nestle. Her grandmother's mythical cookie recipe turns out to be Nestle's.
I think the fact that IKEA does, in fact, have decent style/taste makes it a standout symbol of plastic consumerism. Does the cookie taste worse because it's Nestle. Does a handcrafted antique table actually have value? Is our culture worth anything or can it be replaced with mass produced, cheap alternatives?
I personally quite admire IKEA for doing what they do well. The corporate structure under a a charitable, tax-free organization is totally bogus and crass... but tax evasion is so prevalent that it's hard to single them out. That said, the cultural aspect is the relevant one and rationalisations aren't necessarily relevant to that.
As a side not, it's disheartening that what IKEA pretends to be doesn't actually exist. Imagine if an organisation with the size/competence of IKEA actually did exist for charitable reasons. 11,00 acres of wilderness might be an average afternoon.
Fight Club is the canonical example. The film picks IKEA to symbolize the enemy and justification for subversive nihilism ... it resonated well. "Friends" features IKEA the alienation theme as well. Phoebe thinks she has an antique apothecary table. You can smell the history of opium and medicinal brews. Turns out it's IKEA. She has a similar storyline with Nestle. Her grandmother's mythical cookie recipe turns out to be Nestle's.
I think the fact that IKEA does, in fact, have decent style/taste makes it a standout symbol of plastic consumerism. Does the cookie taste worse because it's Nestle. Does a handcrafted antique table actually have value? Is our culture worth anything or can it be replaced with mass produced, cheap alternatives?
I personally quite admire IKEA for doing what they do well. The corporate structure under a a charitable, tax-free organization is totally bogus and crass... but tax evasion is so prevalent that it's hard to single them out. That said, the cultural aspect is the relevant one and rationalisations aren't necessarily relevant to that.
As a side not, it's disheartening that what IKEA pretends to be doesn't actually exist. Imagine if an organisation with the size/competence of IKEA actually did exist for charitable reasons. 11,00 acres of wilderness might be an average afternoon.
> Phoebe thinks she has an antique apothecary table. You can smell the history of opium and medicinal brews. Turns out it's IKEA.
Off the top of my head, I think it was Pottery Barn, not IKEA.
Off the top of my head, I think it was Pottery Barn, not IKEA.
I can also confirm it was Pottery Barn.
It was labeled with the origin, White Plains (NY), "a magical place".
oops.
Also in fight club, it isn’t ikea but a fictitious analog, named fürther or something.
Hand crafted furniture often has more value because the types of jointery used are more durable over time. A dovetail joined drawer will last much longer than one put together via plastic screws, but it’s also requires much more expensive materials and labor.
Oh, and hardwood furniture is often lighter ironically. MDF is really heavy.
Oh, and hardwood furniture is often lighter ironically. MDF is really heavy.
Sometimes, maybe. But more generally, if you judge strictly along price performance and allow nothing for the subjective... I think IKEA/mass production comes out on top.
Great carpentry is valuable because people like it, because it's beautiful, maybe because it's impressive. The table will hold the dinner just fine without quality joinery.
Great carpentry is valuable because people like it, because it's beautiful, maybe because it's impressive. The table will hold the dinner just fine without quality joinery.
Not to split hairs, but in Friends it's Pottery Barn.
Could be "plastic consumerism" but it could also be material freedom and mobility: https://jakeseliger.com/2015/03/10/does-ikea-enable-mobility...
Also, the furniture market is just insane. If you want a chest of drawers, you either pay $100 for a cheap flat pack self-assembled one from IKEA and take it home today, or similar prices for a similar one online from Wayfair.com (a bit more of a gamble), or you pay over $1000 for something that won’t show up for 6 months. It’s bizarre that you can buy a brand new car with cash and take it home today, but the supply chain for wooden rectangles is extremely underdeveloped.
Or you get a good one second hand for $50?
Finding something good second hand takes time and luck. A lot of second hand stuff is garbage because the good stuff is snatched up quick.
And risk thousands of dollars and years of trauma from bed bugs.
I'd love some insight in how this industry works. I know there's some shops that literally do woodworking and upholstry for that bespoke furniture, but as far as I know, most of it is designed for industry production and mass produced. And indeed, if it's one thing IKEA is doing, it's exactly design for mass production at scale, but the quality is not super-high, perhaps even intentionally.
I think, when it comes down to it, lots of people can afford those $1000—or more—furnitures. When people here in the Nordics are done with their furniture, it's often just given away for free on our Craigslist equivalents. And not just the cheap stuff! Often you find really high quality stuff being given away for free. In fact, I found my favourite antique chair in a dumpster! All it needed was a bit of dusting off, and I've had it for over 20 years now. It's simply a very sturdy and high quality armchair. And their previous owners opted to throw it away rather than to even list it.
Personally I really like to list stuff, though, because it's an easy way to get others to do the heavy lifting for you. So probably that explains at least some of it. ;)
I think, when it comes down to it, lots of people can afford those $1000—or more—furnitures. When people here in the Nordics are done with their furniture, it's often just given away for free on our Craigslist equivalents. And not just the cheap stuff! Often you find really high quality stuff being given away for free. In fact, I found my favourite antique chair in a dumpster! All it needed was a bit of dusting off, and I've had it for over 20 years now. It's simply a very sturdy and high quality armchair. And their previous owners opted to throw it away rather than to even list it.
Personally I really like to list stuff, though, because it's an easy way to get others to do the heavy lifting for you. So probably that explains at least some of it. ;)
Ikea definitely has tiers of quality. A $50 desk is basically cardboard, a $500 desk has some MDF around the edges to make it feel sturdier, and the $1000 desk might even have some real wood in it.
The real problem with IKEA is that they use a supply chain that tends to bribe officials into cutting down old growth forests, destroying wildlife habitats.
The real problem with IKEA is that they use a supply chain that tends to bribe officials into cutting down old growth forests, destroying wildlife habitats.
Here’s a $100 desktop that’s solid wood:
https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/gerton-tabletop-beech-50106773/
A set of metal legs is about $30.
They used to sell a solid wood desk for under $200. I have one. It lasted over 10 years, but the desktop recently warped and split. (Laptop overheated it, I think.)
https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/gerton-tabletop-beech-50106773/
A set of metal legs is about $30.
They used to sell a solid wood desk for under $200. I have one. It lasted over 10 years, but the desktop recently warped and split. (Laptop overheated it, I think.)
Yeah, it's entirely possible to buy actually good furniture from IKEA. Even their MDF/veneered stuff will last a while if you're careful moving it.
If you're comparing it to cars, you can buy furniture with cash today from retail home stores. Online you can get something from Ashley or West Elm for around $500 within a few weeks, or online stores like Article or Joybird will hit that $1000 and ship quicker. Of course, a $100 dresser is not the same product as a $1000 dresser, which Ikea will also sell you.
I wouldn't say it's insane—shipping big things individually is expensive. Ikea is the crazy one, and they've certainly innovated to make furniture cheap. But everything cheap has a cost.
I wouldn't say it's insane—shipping big things individually is expensive. Ikea is the crazy one, and they've certainly innovated to make furniture cheap. But everything cheap has a cost.
I consider IKEA to be more or less the ideal home shoppping experience. Some things are picked up along the way, larger things are grabbed at the end. The way they're laid out maximizes usable showroom space, while allowing for entire rooms to be built, with every part showing something you could buy. For anyone looking to furnish their place at a good quality/price, it's the first place I'd think of.
The way they're laid out maximizes the amount of time it takes to get through them by the "natural" path, making customers repeatedly make the decision not to buy things, thereby wearing down their willpower until they get to the end and can load up their cart with trinkets they didn't need when they showed up.
If you go to a showroom and get offended when it does its job it sounds like you really shouldn't be going to a showroom at all.
Oh, I don't and I'm not offended. I'm just pointing out that there was a design constraint other than "This is for the consumer's benefit"
> [...] ideal home shopping experience.
I don't like the huge maze, but luckily there are shortcuts...
I don't like the huge maze, but luckily there are shortcuts...
It's not Ikea that people hate, it's Ikea customers. People like to think of the moment they upgrades from Ikea furniture to something else as a life milestone where they ascend to another social class, and once they have done that they get to look down on the classes that buy Ikea furniture.
Sure, there's a whole list of supposed justifications, but most people's "upgrade" furniture is the same mass-produced crap, but with some marketing to position it as for the class of people who are too good for ikea. Restoration Hardware and Wayfair are making great money selling people what is essentially Ikea furniture plus a little bit of snobbery.
Sure, there's a whole list of supposed justifications, but most people's "upgrade" furniture is the same mass-produced crap, but with some marketing to position it as for the class of people who are too good for ikea. Restoration Hardware and Wayfair are making great money selling people what is essentially Ikea furniture plus a little bit of snobbery.
Heh, the first time I bought IKEA furniture I felt like a rich person, because that was the first time I even owned new furniture. Before then, all my furniture (except mattresses) came from the side of the road on large trash pickup days, or was second/third hand from relatives.
I previously would have dismissed this sort of comment with the thought "surely they are missing something." But recently we were looking for simple cabinets and found some we liked on Wayfair but just seemed expensive to me. On a whim I checked Target and found the exact same thing - same model number, even the same marketing pictures for about 33% less. The only difference, as you say, was the snobbery in the description.
I have alot of IKEA stuff, the quality complaints are mostly inaccurate IMO. If you buy mid-priced furniture from a big box furniture store, it costs more and very marginally much better. It does move better assembled though.
High quality furniture requires skilled labor and is very expensive.
I would say that having built an Ikea kitchen and dealing with a few relatively minor issues, their customer support sucks. The employees are great, but the friction in getting to them is awful. Maybe the NY/NJ/CT Ikeas are worse with this.
High quality furniture requires skilled labor and is very expensive.
I would say that having built an Ikea kitchen and dealing with a few relatively minor issues, their customer support sucks. The employees are great, but the friction in getting to them is awful. Maybe the NY/NJ/CT Ikeas are worse with this.
It all depends on what you buy there.
I fitted two IKEA kitchens to past homes I lived in, 14 and 17 years ago. Not professionally fitted either, I did the hard work.
I found the properties had both recently been sold and had a look at the listings - both of the kitchens were still doing great.
The kitchen I fitted had solid oak door frames with a veneered panel, Quaker style if you will, with standard chipboard cabinets.
I fitted two IKEA kitchens to past homes I lived in, 14 and 17 years ago. Not professionally fitted either, I did the hard work.
I found the properties had both recently been sold and had a look at the listings - both of the kitchens were still doing great.
The kitchen I fitted had solid oak door frames with a veneered panel, Quaker style if you will, with standard chipboard cabinets.
I did the same thing in the last house we owned. We had a build and design company who quoted us around $50K to remodel the kitchen. We paid them $100 for the design they came up with and parted ways.
We went to IKEA and picked everything out. IKEA hired a sub contractor and they came and installed everything in two days. We still had to do all the demo and prep for them, but we were able to get multiple discounts on everything we bought.
In the end, our tiny kitchen remodel went from $50K to $15K. We moved out about a year later, but all the cabinets and quartz counter tops were still in pristine condition, even after a solid year of use.
We went to IKEA and picked everything out. IKEA hired a sub contractor and they came and installed everything in two days. We still had to do all the demo and prep for them, but we were able to get multiple discounts on everything we bought.
In the end, our tiny kitchen remodel went from $50K to $15K. We moved out about a year later, but all the cabinets and quartz counter tops were still in pristine condition, even after a solid year of use.
IKEA cabinets are usually considered one of the best things they make. Plastic layered MDF works really well for cabinetry for whatever reason.
Even most woodworkers seem to actually recommend Ikea cabinets, even if they despise the rest of their products.
Even most woodworkers seem to actually recommend Ikea cabinets, even if they despise the rest of their products.
With my knowledge as a non-professional woodworker, there's not a lot to cabinets. Even professionally made cabinets use veneered plywood for the bases so what IKEA does isn't any different than almost all cabinets here in the US. The US mostly uses 'framed' cabinets instead of European 'frameless' cabinets, but the cabinet box is essentially the same.
wood expansion is a big factor for wide flat pieces. Non directional wood products like MDF are used in cabinetry because they do not expand to anywhere near the same degree as solid wood. If you want to use solid wood you have to float it in panels, like you sometimes see on doors. But that adds a lot of complexity. For cabinets where you have dozens of moving pieces using MDF (or plywood) is much better for the reliability of the moving parts.
I like IKEA furniture for what it is. It is thoughtfully designed, afordable and usually very easy to assemble.
However, their US customer service is essentially non exsistent. I had items delivered damaged and could not get in touch with anyone. I eventually gave up as the effort was not worth it.
However, their US customer service is essentially non exsistent. I had items delivered damaged and could not get in touch with anyone. I eventually gave up as the effort was not worth it.
As frustrating as that is (and I’ve had my share of it to know), if I turn the feeling upside down, maybe there is an iron triangle of cost, error rate and customer service responsiveness. If the price attraction rate is higher than the customer losses represented by product error times the fix error rate, then you win. If the error rate is pushed too far or the customer service white gloved, then costs must be higher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle
That makes sense if you're talking about getting a stale loaf of bread once in awhile. But if you're talking durable goods, the overhead of one incident erases all potential savings or efficiencies.
I'm a fan of Ikea and their products, but their shipping in particular and any process that requires call center interaction are ridiculous and a complete waste of time.
I'm a fan of Ikea and their products, but their shipping in particular and any process that requires call center interaction are ridiculous and a complete waste of time.
It did used to last a lifetime though, my parents bought some items in the 1970s which they still use today (stools, shelves and the odd table), it still looks good as well.
IKEA has several “tranches” of cheap furniture.
Some of it is solely designed to hit a price point (“a $10 chair”) and is made of cheap plywood, cheaply connected.
Some of it is more the “can we pick some low hanging design fruit, apply massive scale, and create a decent chair for 20% of the price it would normally cost” variety. That furniture normally lasts a long time.
Some of it is solely designed to hit a price point (“a $10 chair”) and is made of cheap plywood, cheaply connected.
Some of it is more the “can we pick some low hanging design fruit, apply massive scale, and create a decent chair for 20% of the price it would normally cost” variety. That furniture normally lasts a long time.
Bingo. Maybe people don't realize that Ikea makes both low-end and mid-range products. They will gladly sell you a $25 entertainment center (Lack-based) and a $500 entertainment center. The expensive items last and many classic designs remain at steeply discounted prices from original manufacture date. (For example, the Pöang originally costing ~$300 adjusted is now $79.)
> Some of it is solely designed to hit a price point (“a $10 chair”) and is made of cheap plywood
Isn't plywood actually stronger than real wood? It's even used for aircraft construction.
Isn't plywood actually stronger than real wood? It's even used for aircraft construction.
Plywood is often stronger than solid wood, but most importantly it doesn’t bend when drying or in moist environments if it’s properly cross-laminated. However, cheap IKEA furniture is often laminated fibre, which is basically compressed sawdust. It’s an entirely different material.
> it doesn’t bend when drying
Not just while the wood is drying, wood 'movement' is something woodworkers have to take into consideration in almost every project. Everyone lives in an environment with humidity (some more than others) and when seasons change solid wood will expand and contract. Plywood is very stable with respect to humidity.
Not just while the wood is drying, wood 'movement' is something woodworkers have to take into consideration in almost every project. Everyone lives in an environment with humidity (some more than others) and when seasons change solid wood will expand and contract. Plywood is very stable with respect to humidity.
I have found that a little wood glue on the joints goes a long way in the IKEA furniture I have.
That's a great idea, I'll definitely be doing that in the future!
I've added L-brackets to key spots on Ikea furniture before, and it often increases how sturdy it feels by an order of magnitude.
Just the other day I fixed a 5 year old Billy bookshelf (that I broke while moving it, while partly loaded with books) by securing the cardboard back with screws instead of finishing nails and adding a couple metal brackets to the bottom. Cosmetically, despite being (ab)used by my kid, it still looks fine, and now feels even more sturdy than before. Wish I had thought of adding some glue (or maybe No More Nails) to secure the back even more.
I've added L-brackets to key spots on Ikea furniture before, and it often increases how sturdy it feels by an order of magnitude.
Just the other day I fixed a 5 year old Billy bookshelf (that I broke while moving it, while partly loaded with books) by securing the cardboard back with screws instead of finishing nails and adding a couple metal brackets to the bottom. Cosmetically, despite being (ab)used by my kid, it still looks fine, and now feels even more sturdy than before. Wish I had thought of adding some glue (or maybe No More Nails) to secure the back even more.
I only started doing it because I have a bunch of the Regissor line. It actually has a screwless assembly process, only being held by friction joints. Over time and after being moved a lot, the coffee table started to loosen. So I took it apart and reassembled it with wood glue in the joints, and now it’s as solid as a rock. I mainly buy the “higher-end” IKEA stuff with real wood or at least stronger particle or plywood or whatever it is except for the Kallax line, so that helps as well.
I just like IKEA so much because they have well designed stuff for good prices, even their more expensive things relative to their cheaper stuff. And with mild care and tweaks during assembly, it can be quite solid. I wish I had thought of the wood glue sooner as well because I’m too lazy to redo my bookshelves.
I just like IKEA so much because they have well designed stuff for good prices, even their more expensive things relative to their cheaper stuff. And with mild care and tweaks during assembly, it can be quite solid. I wish I had thought of the wood glue sooner as well because I’m too lazy to redo my bookshelves.
No, it depends on the application. There's a reason it's still called "solid wood".
If you look, most plywoods are "whitewood" or whatever is cheapest (most softwoods are incredibly strong as the term is just a synonym for coniferous). If you compare apples-to-apples -- Baltic Birch (or similar products with only birch layers) to solid birch...
The plywood doesn't have any noticeable wood movement;
The plywood can have fasteners and glue in any face (unlike solid where endgrain must be joined);
The solid wood usually has much better stiffness;
The solid wood is limited to shape and size by nature of trees; plywood can be found in larger sizes.
Good wooden chairs are impossible to find commercially now. The wood from the seat needs to be very wet and a wood that doesn't split easily, and the wood for the legs needs to be riven and dryer than what its final environment will be (so as close to 0% moisture as possible, at least <10%).
This is so that the legs expand a bit into the seat, which will continue to shrink, and make an incredibly tight fit. But it's not conducive at all to mass-production, which is why you often see them nailed, bracketed, bolted, etc, all sorts of dirty tricks.
Woodworking is a rabbit-hole you might find compelling or infuriating. You can't unlearn the knowledge when you do.
If you look, most plywoods are "whitewood" or whatever is cheapest (most softwoods are incredibly strong as the term is just a synonym for coniferous). If you compare apples-to-apples -- Baltic Birch (or similar products with only birch layers) to solid birch...
The plywood doesn't have any noticeable wood movement;
The plywood can have fasteners and glue in any face (unlike solid where endgrain must be joined);
The solid wood usually has much better stiffness;
The solid wood is limited to shape and size by nature of trees; plywood can be found in larger sizes.
Good wooden chairs are impossible to find commercially now. The wood from the seat needs to be very wet and a wood that doesn't split easily, and the wood for the legs needs to be riven and dryer than what its final environment will be (so as close to 0% moisture as possible, at least <10%).
This is so that the legs expand a bit into the seat, which will continue to shrink, and make an incredibly tight fit. But it's not conducive at all to mass-production, which is why you often see them nailed, bracketed, bolted, etc, all sorts of dirty tricks.
Woodworking is a rabbit-hole you might find compelling or infuriating. You can't unlearn the knowledge when you do.
They have classic designs which last forever.
IKEA is almost universally made with cheap materials, but not everything needs high quality materials to last.
IKEA is almost universally made with cheap materials, but not everything needs high quality materials to last.
They still have hardwood furniture though. No one's forcing anyone to buy the cheap plywood ones.
Their architect lamps are still good and last for ages. They cost £10 - the designer ones cost over a hundred pounds.
Anecdotal I know, but I've compared furniture from Ikea to equivalently cheap stuff from big box stores like target. The equivalent furniture from Target going through the same use cases as the furniture from Ikea - The Target ones are easily several times worse than the Ikea ones, in terms of build quality, safety potentials, etc...
I completely agree. Ikea really seems like a bit of unicorn in this space to my mind too. In the world of products that are affordable they tend to also be ugly or lacking consideration. Ikea offsets this by over-valuing considered design compared to nearly everyone and then making novel manufacturing concepts.
There really is something about a company that provides incredibly cheap products with a LONG return policy and good design to the masses. Plus their products might use a lot of wood, but they also offset it with renewable initiatives and by putting a lot of time into efficient shipping.
There really is something about a company that provides incredibly cheap products with a LONG return policy and good design to the masses. Plus their products might use a lot of wood, but they also offset it with renewable initiatives and by putting a lot of time into efficient shipping.
> I never understood why people hate IKEA. Yes it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime. Yes it needs a lot of wood. Yes it's highly optimized.
It's mass production without the opportunity to posture about your means. It's also often a complicated and confusing experience to put together if you don't heed the instruction booklet carefully.
Personally, I think IKEA's instructions are dramatically better than the norm. An exploded engine diagram is a common approach from other vendors.
It's mass production without the opportunity to posture about your means. It's also often a complicated and confusing experience to put together if you don't heed the instruction booklet carefully.
Personally, I think IKEA's instructions are dramatically better than the norm. An exploded engine diagram is a common approach from other vendors.
I don't even think it is that cheap. It is better than the quality you get at most furniture stores for a lower price.
I don't buy the garbage at most furniture stores for the same reason. Real wood isn't that much more expensive and will last. Plenty of it to be found at the likes of goodwill for cheap.
Older people who lived in a world of more resources per person and better craftsmen are used to high quality furniture. That luxury isn't really available at the moment, which is a shame, but IKEA have helped a lot of people.
A close friend of mine filled his house entirely with furniture, including couches, from the 1800s. Antique grandfather clocks, pianos, tables, armoires, etc. Not surprisingly, this person is highly skilled with wood and works at a small furniture shop that makes high-quality tables and chairs.
Things made out of wood can last centuries. There's no need to further accelerate our throwaway culture with throwaway furniture.
For this reason primarily, I hate IKEA and do not buy from them. I prefer to buy actual furniture made by actual people. Reward local artisans, businesses, and shops and avoid waste. Reject globalism. It is what is eating the planet.
Things made out of wood can last centuries. There's no need to further accelerate our throwaway culture with throwaway furniture.
For this reason primarily, I hate IKEA and do not buy from them. I prefer to buy actual furniture made by actual people. Reward local artisans, businesses, and shops and avoid waste. Reject globalism. It is what is eating the planet.
An interesting proposition!
In 2008, I was on my own for the first time. I had to furnish my first apartment into livability. A family friend gave me a $300 gift card to IKEA. That gift got me a fully functional one-bedroom apartment that I could never have afforded at the time.
Now, as a well-paid adult advanced in my career, I can afford to buy high-quality things. I do this knowing full well that I'm buying status symbols. I'm a little skeptical that a highly skilled woodworker's output would have been available to 2008 me, or the modern equivalent, but I would love to be wrong.
In 2008, I was on my own for the first time. I had to furnish my first apartment into livability. A family friend gave me a $300 gift card to IKEA. That gift got me a fully functional one-bedroom apartment that I could never have afforded at the time.
Now, as a well-paid adult advanced in my career, I can afford to buy high-quality things. I do this knowing full well that I'm buying status symbols. I'm a little skeptical that a highly skilled woodworker's output would have been available to 2008 me, or the modern equivalent, but I would love to be wrong.
Sure, nice things usually cost a premium. But used, secondhand stuff can be affordable too. There should be an economy of downcycling that allows for more affordable stuff, too. I just don't think that IKEA is that.
Case in point. When I moved in 2013 I had a ~$1500 dining table that I had paid $800 for. Due to the abruptness of my move, I ended up selling it on Craigslist for something like $200. Keep an eye out for deals, I guess?
BTW none of the 1800s furniture that my friend collected were particularly expensive. Just always looking for good deals and willing to driving 200+ miles for them.
Case in point. When I moved in 2013 I had a ~$1500 dining table that I had paid $800 for. Due to the abruptness of my move, I ended up selling it on Craigslist for something like $200. Keep an eye out for deals, I guess?
BTW none of the 1800s furniture that my friend collected were particularly expensive. Just always looking for good deals and willing to driving 200+ miles for them.
> There should be an economy of downcycling that allows for more affordable stuff, too. I just don't think that IKEA is that.
You're absolutely right! There often this. This is rarely anywhere near the IKEA price point, though. A dining room table for $200, however nice, would have eaten up two thirds of my furnishing budget. How does one manage chairs, a bedframe, and so on of good quality for $100?
It's not been my experience that a person can do that by being willing to drive hundreds of miles and owning a car, but YMMV. IKEA lets you do this reliably, and offers delivery services.
When your answer to "How do I furnish?" is "Do without until the perfect deal comes along", do you think it might be worth considering that your answer might not be great for everyone?
You're absolutely right! There often this. This is rarely anywhere near the IKEA price point, though. A dining room table for $200, however nice, would have eaten up two thirds of my furnishing budget. How does one manage chairs, a bedframe, and so on of good quality for $100?
It's not been my experience that a person can do that by being willing to drive hundreds of miles and owning a car, but YMMV. IKEA lets you do this reliably, and offers delivery services.
When your answer to "How do I furnish?" is "Do without until the perfect deal comes along", do you think it might be worth considering that your answer might not be great for everyone?
The niche IKEA fills isn't "cheap but functional", it's "stylish, but cheap."
Why would you buy an IKEA table and chairs for ~$120 when you can buy a folding table and chairs for less? The folding table and chairs are not only more durable, but they can also be used in the future for other purposes after you replace them as your main dining room furniture. They store better. They last forever. (My grandmother plays cards with her friends on such tables that are older than my parents.) The IKEA table and chairs you get are inferior in every way except one: style.
> When your answer to "How do I furnish?" is "Do without until the perfect deal comes along", do you think it might be worth considering that your answer might not be great for everyone?
This is probably the best answer for most. No answer will be right for everyone. For instance, someone trying to entertain clients in their home will need better than a folding table for dining.
When you're starting out: buy inexpensive, durable, and multipurpose for anything you can't do without, otherwise go without until you can afford to get the right piece.
Why would you buy an IKEA table and chairs for ~$120 when you can buy a folding table and chairs for less? The folding table and chairs are not only more durable, but they can also be used in the future for other purposes after you replace them as your main dining room furniture. They store better. They last forever. (My grandmother plays cards with her friends on such tables that are older than my parents.) The IKEA table and chairs you get are inferior in every way except one: style.
> When your answer to "How do I furnish?" is "Do without until the perfect deal comes along", do you think it might be worth considering that your answer might not be great for everyone?
This is probably the best answer for most. No answer will be right for everyone. For instance, someone trying to entertain clients in their home will need better than a folding table for dining.
When you're starting out: buy inexpensive, durable, and multipurpose for anything you can't do without, otherwise go without until you can afford to get the right piece.
>Just always looking for good deals and willing to driving 200+ miles for them.
for a lot of us city dwellers, that already makes it unaffordable.
I think the Buy Nothing movement is really accelerating this trend of trying to connect people to drive the recycling community. Don't throw out old furniture, your local Buy Nothing group will be full of people happy to rehome it.
for a lot of us city dwellers, that already makes it unaffordable.
I think the Buy Nothing movement is really accelerating this trend of trying to connect people to drive the recycling community. Don't throw out old furniture, your local Buy Nothing group will be full of people happy to rehome it.
I was just about to chime in to say something similar. Even if you have a vehicle which can move furniture and a day to blow picking it up, you're gonna pay at least $40 just in gas for furniture which, from the sound of things, isn't that much cheaper per piece than the entire bedroom set they had purchased.
Not to say that I haven't done that before. In the right circumstances it can be a good decision, but I don't know that it's a general purpose replacement for IKEA.
Not to say that I haven't done that before. In the right circumstances it can be a good decision, but I don't know that it's a general purpose replacement for IKEA.
My problem with antique hardwood furniture is that the logistics of delivery and assembly are sometimes too much for me to handle. If I hire movers and a carpenter to assemble it gets expensive and out of my reach very quickly. I'd love to learn some carpentry and also how to drive and also get a truck, but I don't love it as much as I love my other crafty or spending based hobbies, and I don't have room for a shop or parking space for a truck.
Most of my IKEA stuff can't even leave the room it's in without disassembly. I just leave them behind when I move or actually have to pay for someone to dismantle them and take them away from the place. Not sure if they sell them as scrap or as furniture but it's cheap because they get to keep whatever they helped me get rid of. Also sometimes I've just put it for free on Craigslist and they last days and get taken.
Most of my IKEA stuff can't even leave the room it's in without disassembly. I just leave them behind when I move or actually have to pay for someone to dismantle them and take them away from the place. Not sure if they sell them as scrap or as furniture but it's cheap because they get to keep whatever they helped me get rid of. Also sometimes I've just put it for free on Craigslist and they last days and get taken.
FWIW IKEA has a lot of solid wood (often pine) options that do last a very long time. My favourite thing is that they degrade gracefully. You get scuffs and dents rather than peeling laminate and engineered wood shavings falling out.
My wife and I bought a kitchen worktable from Ikea almost 10 years ago. It is made entirely out of pine and is actually pretty nice. The surface was getting very well used, as I had it in the garage for a workbench for a little while. I took the power planer to it and put some tung oil on it, it looks brand new.
Wait a sec. When the products are sold by IKEA, they are cheap but they are "products that people actually need". But when they are from China, they are "cheap crap from china"?
> Yes it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime.
I've found if you buy something from IKEA when you're putting it together, using wood glue and better screws actually lengthens the life of their stuff considerably. I feel its not the wood that is the issue, just the crappy hardware they send with their stuff that is the issue.
But agreed on the rest of your points.
I've found if you buy something from IKEA when you're putting it together, using wood glue and better screws actually lengthens the life of their stuff considerably. I feel its not the wood that is the issue, just the crappy hardware they send with their stuff that is the issue.
But agreed on the rest of your points.
The cheap stuff is ok but the 'higher-end' of IKEA products are just not good. For example, their couches are in the hundreds of dollars range but the cushions become flat and uncomfortable after a very short period of time. Investing a little more in a non-IKEA quality couch will feel like night and day.
Exactly.
>it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime.
It lasts longer than most people think. I have a few IKEA dressers that I bought in 2012 that still look like new. Will they become antiques? No, but I only paid 80 dollars for them so I don't care.
>Yes it needs a lot of wood.
Carbon sink. Better than plastic.
>it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime.
It lasts longer than most people think. I have a few IKEA dressers that I bought in 2012 that still look like new. Will they become antiques? No, but I only paid 80 dollars for them so I don't care.
>Yes it needs a lot of wood.
Carbon sink. Better than plastic.
>Yes it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime.
Honestly, I haven't found IKEA to be all that cheap? When I was looking for a bed frame they seemed comparable to other midrange furniture places. I could definitely have found a similar thing cheaper online or maybe even at Walmart.
I guess I'm used to buying furniture used, where the floor's the limit for how cheap it can be, but my impression of IKEA was that people go there for the showroom experience and the meatballs more than the price.
Honestly, I haven't found IKEA to be all that cheap? When I was looking for a bed frame they seemed comparable to other midrange furniture places. I could definitely have found a similar thing cheaper online or maybe even at Walmart.
I guess I'm used to buying furniture used, where the floor's the limit for how cheap it can be, but my impression of IKEA was that people go there for the showroom experience and the meatballs more than the price.
I once tried to return a defective $20 item... And waited... And waited... I sat in the return area for about 45 minutes while no one was helped.
Their bold claims of "just bring it back" were totally bogus.
Their bold claims of "just bring it back" were totally bogus.
I have IKEA socks (probably illegally made by https://theholeinmysock.com/shop/women/ikea-socks/) and tend to wear them in summer. People often compliment me for this odd choice of socks. Others find it confusing. However when I ask them if they prefer IKEA or LEGO as a brand they still choose IKEA. Statistically insignificant but I thought I’d still share.
> I never understood why people hate IKEA
Besides not providing the most durable furniture, albeit at the most competitive price and reasonably good looking designs, they've had a few PR disasters over the years like this one :p
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/25/172869585/ho...
Besides not providing the most durable furniture, albeit at the most competitive price and reasonably good looking designs, they've had a few PR disasters over the years like this one :p
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/25/172869585/ho...
Pretty much everyone in Europe was caught up in the horse meat scandal. I suspect that IKEA was not the one at fault here. The horse meat was inserted into the supply chain right at the slaughtering stage.
> I suspect that IKEA was not the one at fault here
That's right, if I recall correctly, for some reason the press really obsessed about IKEA and another steakhouse chain whose name I forgot.
That's right, if I recall correctly, for some reason the press really obsessed about IKEA and another steakhouse chain whose name I forgot.
>I know in 10 years replacements for their core products will still be available.
Lots of iterative design revisions and deprecation makes many of IKEA systems not particularly future proof. But in general I think there's massive ecological benefits to how far IKEA goes to value engineer their products. Though ironically this means all the savings are going to be redirected at other consumption.
Lots of iterative design revisions and deprecation makes many of IKEA systems not particularly future proof. But in general I think there's massive ecological benefits to how far IKEA goes to value engineer their products. Though ironically this means all the savings are going to be redirected at other consumption.
The quality is such a big differentiator. In my household we have a mix of IKEA furniture and flat-pack stuff from other vendors (the Brick, Wayfair, etc), and IKEA is so much better on all fronts— the materials are thicker and tougher, the fasteners are larger and stronger, the designs are better thought out and easier to assemble; there's just no comparison.
Maybe it's because of those people that got trapped in the IKEA forever....
http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-3008
^ It's fiction. I just thought people here are the kind that would enjoy it.
^ It's fiction. I just thought people here are the kind that would enjoy it.
Their habit of using illegally harvested wood is a good reason to hate them.
Is that true? They make a big show of their environmentalism. In general, I'm very disappointed at how difficult it is to make informed consumer choices with respect to the environment. Maybe the idea is that consumer choices are small potatoes and we should all just pour our energy into campaigning for climate policy?
They've been accused of illegal logging in Romania[0], but they're very secretive about where they get their lumber from.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Possible_illegal_timber_i...
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Possible_illegal_timber_i...
I'm not as sure that Ikea's manufacturing employees are paid a living wage as I am for Lego. Externalities count, all of them.
I like IKEA stores, but I don't believe for a second this land purchase was made for forestry altruism.
The world biggest charging ikea?? How can anyone hate them. Unless they just do it for tax purposes.
Maybe because it's not an American company.
[deleted]
IKEA is to furniture -- what Walmart is to general consumer goods and groceries...
> I never understood why people hate IKEA
Snobs, basically.
Snobs, basically.
Personally I hate IKEA because they are selling pure crap.
I've been very happy with my Ikea purchases. Some of the materials are cheaper, but usually the overall function is better than products that would cost some multiple of the price. We have the means to buy the more expensive furniture, but I can't find any retailers that offer things that are as well-designed as IKEA, and IKEA seems to concern itself with the environment (although it's frustratingly easy for a retailer to mislead about the degree to which they are environmentally friendly, and while I'm sure IKEA exaggerates, my other local retailers are far less convincing). I have been disappointed with IKEA's selection of bookcases, but otherwise I'm pretty happy. Most importantly, my wife and I really enjoy trips to IKEA as one of the few 'outings' we get to do during COVID (we like to browse around show rooms and get ideas for our home and also to try their Swedish-themed foods).
That said, I really do welcome suggestions for other retailers, whether they be retailers that are more environmentally friendly, or better designed, or with a more enjoyable shopping experience.
EDIT: one more grievance--somehow everything is still out of stock for the foreseeable future, and they are very tight-lipped about the specific nature of their supply chain woes and how they're going to work around them. I would expect that a year into the pandemic they'd have addressed some of their supply chain issues or at least managed to be more accurate about their shipping estimates (even if those estimates are still far off into the future).
That said, I really do welcome suggestions for other retailers, whether they be retailers that are more environmentally friendly, or better designed, or with a more enjoyable shopping experience.
EDIT: one more grievance--somehow everything is still out of stock for the foreseeable future, and they are very tight-lipped about the specific nature of their supply chain woes and how they're going to work around them. I would expect that a year into the pandemic they'd have addressed some of their supply chain issues or at least managed to be more accurate about their shipping estimates (even if those estimates are still far off into the future).
They're also a good source for certain fully manufactured products.
Eg. If you want rechargeable NiMH batteries, IKEA's are some of the best you can get. Their smart bulbs also have a good reputation.
Eg. If you want rechargeable NiMH batteries, IKEA's are some of the best you can get. Their smart bulbs also have a good reputation.
probably because of its relationship to nazism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/01/2...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/01/2...
Seems from that article that that relationship is rather nuanced and only really pertains to the founder and not the company at large.
I bought an IKEA desk and tried to assemble it myself. Between the poor wood quality, bad paint job, hard to connect components and painful assembly process, I gave up and got a refund.
I asked a friend of a friend that's a carpenter and he made way better desk for same amount of money.
I asked a friend of a friend that's a carpenter and he made way better desk for same amount of money.
In America at least, the only way to make a significantly better desk than an IKEA one at similar prices is to omit the costs of tools and labor.
Even after omitting the very significant cost of tooling (my corner clamp jigs for cabinetry cost half what a GALANT table does), getting good material you actually want will easily hit a hundred bucks for a fairly small, plywood-based desk. (Baltic birch isn't cheap! But it's cheaper than solid wood.)
I would rather own that desk, for sure, but it's not cheaper, and IKEA is pretty amazing at what kind of quality they offer at what prices--sure it's all fiberboard or cheap wood, but it's reasonably reliable and it's impressive that it's doable at that scale at all.
Even after omitting the very significant cost of tooling (my corner clamp jigs for cabinetry cost half what a GALANT table does), getting good material you actually want will easily hit a hundred bucks for a fairly small, plywood-based desk. (Baltic birch isn't cheap! But it's cheaper than solid wood.)
I would rather own that desk, for sure, but it's not cheaper, and IKEA is pretty amazing at what kind of quality they offer at what prices--sure it's all fiberboard or cheap wood, but it's reasonably reliable and it's impressive that it's doable at that scale at all.
Yup. Anyone who starts to make their own furniture suddenly has a new-found appreciation for why furniture costs what it does.
That fact that you can easily spend $400-600 on the wood alone for a new dining table is staggering. (And makes you really, really careful while you build it.)
(My pandemic working-from-home desk was made of cheap box-store plywood, because I wasn't going to splurge on baltic for something that I hope I won't be using in a year. And it still cost what an IKEA desk would cost (but fits perfectly in my space, which is why I made it.))
That fact that you can easily spend $400-600 on the wood alone for a new dining table is staggering. (And makes you really, really careful while you build it.)
(My pandemic working-from-home desk was made of cheap box-store plywood, because I wasn't going to splurge on baltic for something that I hope I won't be using in a year. And it still cost what an IKEA desk would cost (but fits perfectly in my space, which is why I made it.))
I never said I was in America. In fact, it's much more likely I live outside of America.
Price of labor is way less. And so is cost of materials.
Price of labor is way less. And so is cost of materials.
I call BS, you can't even buy the material to build something at IKEA prices, let alone assemble it.
BS based on what? I can show you the desk. I did found his bill. It was $30 bucks more.
The price for IKEA piece was materials plus delivery.
The price for that desk was design, delivery and assembly on the spot.
The price for IKEA piece was materials plus delivery.
The price for that desk was design, delivery and assembly on the spot.
I bought a mechanical IKEA desk (that goes up and down in height), spent at least 20% less than all the other online options I found available and they shipped to me in 5 days.
Knowing how to follow instructions, I just assembled it in 30 minutes and it's the desk I now use daily at home.
This just to say that YMMV based on the item you buy, where you live, what's your experience with "self assembling" items, etc.
This just to say that YMMV based on the item you buy, where you live, what's your experience with "self assembling" items, etc.
It's the junk food of furniture. Produced at scale with poor materials, satisfies people's immediate need, locations are functional and service is fast. But don't you want something more substantial and created with more craft? You probably don't need more than one adult bed in a lifetime, for example. I've got furniture that's been in use hundreds of years.
There is a very high variability in the quality of their goods, that is for certain. Each of my daughters bought steel bed frames that will likely last a lifetime. They are really solid. The slats will probably need to be replaced someday, but they will last as long as any box spring.
But yes, a lot of their MDF beds are junk.
I bought a stand up desk from them a few years ago. They had three models available at the time, and two of them were 'wobbly' when fully extended, but one of them was not. After four (five?) years of use, both raised and lowered, it is still a great desk. It is hand cranked. It is solid, it is sturdy.
So yes, when you shop at Ikea, you have to know what you are getting into, and you need to actually go and see the piece assembled on the floor. The quality from piece to piece is hard to tell from looking.
One of my daughters bought an "Alex" dresser. The construction on that is solid, the drawers move beautifully. But many of their other dressers are fine for four years of college, or maybe a first apartment, and not much else.
Having said that, that 'temporary' market is huge.
Quick edit: If you are looking for a practical 'sit/stand' desk. Here is the one I have. It has been really good. It is not light (in case you live in a walk up). Available ina couple different lengths. Fully extended, it is very stable.
https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/skarsta-desk-sit-stand-white-s8...
But yes, a lot of their MDF beds are junk.
I bought a stand up desk from them a few years ago. They had three models available at the time, and two of them were 'wobbly' when fully extended, but one of them was not. After four (five?) years of use, both raised and lowered, it is still a great desk. It is hand cranked. It is solid, it is sturdy.
So yes, when you shop at Ikea, you have to know what you are getting into, and you need to actually go and see the piece assembled on the floor. The quality from piece to piece is hard to tell from looking.
One of my daughters bought an "Alex" dresser. The construction on that is solid, the drawers move beautifully. But many of their other dressers are fine for four years of college, or maybe a first apartment, and not much else.
Having said that, that 'temporary' market is huge.
Quick edit: If you are looking for a practical 'sit/stand' desk. Here is the one I have. It has been really good. It is not light (in case you live in a walk up). Available ina couple different lengths. Fully extended, it is very stable.
https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/skarsta-desk-sit-stand-white-s8...
> But don't you want something more substantial and created with more craft?
No. My furniture is...part of the furniture. I care about it being practical. I don't care about its heritage. IKEA quality is perfectly adequate for me, so I'm not inclined to pay for any more.
I also appreciate light furniture that can be moved easily. Furniture that is more "substantial" and made from real wood[1], for example, is far more of a pain for me.
[1] As opposed to chipboard; I don't mean to imply that IKEA aren't using trees.
No. My furniture is...part of the furniture. I care about it being practical. I don't care about its heritage. IKEA quality is perfectly adequate for me, so I'm not inclined to pay for any more.
I also appreciate light furniture that can be moved easily. Furniture that is more "substantial" and made from real wood[1], for example, is far more of a pain for me.
[1] As opposed to chipboard; I don't mean to imply that IKEA aren't using trees.
And that's fine, that's how some people view food and they're happy with junk food in the same way people are happy with junk furniture. Junk food and junk furniture are both consistent, cheap, simple, unsurprising, available anywhere, and sometimes that's what people want. But that's what it is - junk furniture.
Junk furniture probably won't give you diabetes.
No. I have several pieces of Ikea furniture that've survived multiple moves and are still rock solid. It's light, cheap, and sturdy. I don't care if my furniture has craft or history.
Honestly a lot of the furniture I've purchased one or two steps up from IKEA ended up being thoroughly underwhelming.
Based on my survey of what's available on the market, you have to go up nearly two orders of magnitude on price from IKEA to find solid wood furniture that feels like it has the craftsmanship to be an heirloom. And at those prices, it's not only more than most people can afford, it's more than most people who can are willing to spend.
Based on my survey of what's available on the market, you have to go up nearly two orders of magnitude on price from IKEA to find solid wood furniture that feels like it has the craftsmanship to be an heirloom. And at those prices, it's not only more than most people can afford, it's more than most people who can are willing to spend.
Historically no it's not, my parents still have a lot of IKEA furniture bought in the 1970s made of real wood which gets used every day.
Like every company, there is some good stuff and some trash. The materials tend to be the key to which is which.
Anything made of solid wood or laminated wood is great because it will take knocks and bumps and ast basically forever. Things like chairs and tables.
Lots of their all-metal stuff is good. One of their desk lamps with springs is a design classic, very cheap and amazing value.
Their non-stick kitchen pans are very good value as is most of their kitchen stuff, including glass, ceramics and some plastic stuff.
Anything made of MDF or manufactured wood is just pure trash.
Anything made of solid wood or laminated wood is great because it will take knocks and bumps and ast basically forever. Things like chairs and tables.
Lots of their all-metal stuff is good. One of their desk lamps with springs is a design classic, very cheap and amazing value.
Their non-stick kitchen pans are very good value as is most of their kitchen stuff, including glass, ceramics and some plastic stuff.
Anything made of MDF or manufactured wood is just pure trash.
If it’s junk food, it’s decent junk food. You can get much worse.
Also, with the relative prices of labor and machines being what they are nowadays, fewer people can afford to buy the traditionally made stuff.
It’s the same with housing. You may want a house built with hand-made bricks laid in complicated patterns, but few people can afford that.
Also, with the relative prices of labor and machines being what they are nowadays, fewer people can afford to buy the traditionally made stuff.
It’s the same with housing. You may want a house built with hand-made bricks laid in complicated patterns, but few people can afford that.
That's great if it meets your needs, but I don't think that's a good argument for why other people shouldn't have the option to buy stuff from Ikea. Population growth alone dictates there's not enough furniture from a hundred years ago for everyone to furnish their homes.
> I don't think that's a good argument for why other people shouldn't have the option to buy stuff from Ikea
I didn't say it as an argument for this? But there is an impact on the environment that effects us all.
I didn't say it as an argument for this? But there is an impact on the environment that effects us all.
I don't think the junk food comparison is valid.
IKEA design often deservedly wins awards, and their products are a great fit for many use cases that otehrs don't even cover.
It's closer to fast casual than to junk food. More Shake Shack than McDonalds, but not a steakhouse.
IKEA design often deservedly wins awards, and their products are a great fit for many use cases that otehrs don't even cover.
It's closer to fast casual than to junk food. More Shake Shack than McDonalds, but not a steakhouse.
I actually went to some high end furniture stores and was surprised that a lot of stuff on the floor was still IKEA quality. Maybe a slight step up, but a lot of it wasn’t solid wood. Additionally, a lot of it was a bit too fussy or looked like something my grandparents would like. When I went to IKEA, I was glad to see some simple furniture, as it suits my tastes.
Cynical Dutch charity buys a headline.
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1104260/ikea-the-bi...
At the time of this article (2019), they owned 66,000 acres of forest in the country.