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.

  • john89@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

    Plus a large part of the article is about non-profit libraries anyway.

    Nice talking point just to cover your bum from shilling.

    • turmacar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

        • turmacar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          So you just didn’t read the article?

          One person hired a metal detector to hunt down the wedding ring they lost when camping in Sussex and found it within 20 minutes. Another rented a planer at £11 a day to fix two doors in her flat

          A handheld pressure washer is £12 a day, while garden shears are £3.50

          Renting is the “subscription” you’re complaining about. You’re right that rent-to-own is a scam at best, but unlike most digital subscriptions you’re using the thing to do something. Like with all rentals there’s a break even line where you would’ve been better buying the thing if you use it often/long enough. But the service existing is not itself a bad thing.

          • john89@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s not nearly as bad as it is now.

            And it was always a scam, even back then.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      The problem is that you’re renting access to something you’re not actually consuming.

      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.

      Nice talking point just to cover your bum from shilling.

      • john89@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        But you are effectively consuming them. Just like renting books and movies

        No, you’re not. Consuming something means it is no longer available after consumption. We can’t “consume” media unless we destroy it afterwards.

        Sorry, you’ve been played by industry talking points just to get you to spend as much money as possible. Now you’re doing your part in perpetuating them.

        There’s a term for people like you, but I’ll refrain from using it here.

        Goodbye. You may have the last word since you need to push your products on others.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ah yes, buying everything you don’t need too long isn’t consumerism but renting and reusing is