I think planned obsolescence is actually a difficult problem and ultimately requires a drastic shift in economic theory and culture to solve. It's not as simple as many people make it out to be and while I don't completely agree with
>>13379999 I do think it has an element of truth that its detractors do not grant.
I think the most core example of this difficulty is exemplified by the movie presented in the video, where workers are concerned that improvements in efficiency will lead to unemployment. This is a recurring problem in today's world where automation is often feared as making people obsolete. I have seen this behavior first hand in a manufacturing environment where there were many opportunities for improved output which were intentionally not used and discouraged for fear of cut overtime.
I believe the foundational truth that must become adopted as a widespread belief is that humanity benefits as a whole from reducing necessary labor. The agricultural revolution that drastically changed the amount of labor required to feed a given population has been the most important factor in our last 200 years of technological, educational, and societal progress. This can continue as we slash labor demands across society. However, society and economics will have to be structured so as to incentivize and allow such transformations, whereas the current incentive structure is not harmonious with such a goal.
Moreover, much of modern culture, both common and corporate, seems very antithetical to this ideal, where all the time and energy freed by genius is intentionally wasted for hedonistic or sociopathic gratifications. It is a fact that many people are forced to sit at a desk for 40 hours, not because their work demands it, but because it is expected to satisfy a manager's ego. This is why the problem is heavily dependent on culture, as well as economics.
