The theory is simple: instead of buying a household item or a piece of clothing or some equipment you might use once or twice, you take it out and return it.
The theory is simple: instead of buying a household item or a piece of clothing or some equipment you might use once or twice, you take it out and return it.
What the fuck is this rent-a-center propaganda?
How stupid are we?
Pretty dumb. I thought this would be about lending libraries -_-
Tf are both you talking about. The article talks about Tool Libraries and The Library of Thing at length. It name drops a few subscription services for reused baby clothes and kids toys but those are still temporary items people need.
Rent-a-centers core business model consists of predatory loans for household appliances that you need continuously. This article talks about rentals for things you only need for a short period of time.
Subscriptions are just as predatory. I won’t applaud them.
There is a tool library near me and it is $45/yr. It’s amazing. These are really good services and this comment section has no idea what it’s talking about.
Hmm. It sounds to me you just don’t want to acknowledge when you’re being taken for a ride.
But hey, to each their own.
Businesses want a lifeline to our wallets, which is why subscriptions and renting are pushed on useful idiots.
I feel like digital software subscriptions have stigmatized subscriptions in general. Subscriptions are great for things that require constant investment to be meaningful. One subscribes to news and receive constant reporting on the latest news; one subscribes to a tool library and get access to nearly every tool one can need. Plus a large part of the article is about non-profit libraries anyway.
The problem is that you’re renting access to something you’re not actually consuming.
Once you stop paying, you lose access and have nothing to show for it. They still have your money, though.
This is different than, say, paying for electricity which is consumed and no longer available for either party after consumption.
Sorry bud, you’re defending being scammed.
Nice talking point just to cover your bum from shilling.
This isn’t new, everything has it’s place.
We rented a trench digger for the day from Home Depot in the 90s instead of buying one for thousands of dollars. That trench didn’t magically go away when we returned the tool. That we didn’t have access to the tool anymore was the plan.
Renting a U-haul for a move is incredibly more efficient than daily driving a giant box truck. Somehow, the things stay moved once the truck is returned.
But you are effectively consuming them. Just like renting books and movies, you nearly always don’t need it again after you return it.
Nice talking point just to cover your bum from shilling.
“We can share books if you pay me to maintain the book sharing system via a non optional tax.” Universally loved system.
“We can share tools if you pay me to maintain those tools via a non optional tax.” A niche program most libraries have.
“We can share tools if you pay me to maintain those tools via an subscription where I have a profit incentive.” Literally 1984 and late stage capitalism.
Yep.
They can be, sure, but they can also be a really good deal. If I know I’ll need a certain amount of something on a fixed schedule, I can subscribe to it and save money. This helps reduce costs for suppliers because they have a better idea of how much stock they need on hand, so they’ll want to encourage you to subscribe with discounts.
Subscriptions are bad when there’s some form of lock-in, such as a fee for breaking the subscription, or if the cost is arbitrarily high without the subscription because of a lack of competition. I dislike digital subscriptions in general because of this, since you’ll lose access to all of the content you’ve enjoyed to that point.
But subscriptions to consumables are fine by me.
Stupid enough to wake up in this world. It didn’t happen in one day.