Why Modern Household Appliances Are So Awful

And how government regulations are making them worse

I can’t say that I’m any kind of expert on the care and feeding of large home appliances. But I have spent more than my fair share of time crouching in tight spots, ratchet set and voltage tester in hand, trying to figure out whether I have what it takes to definitively diagnose a problem and fix it; whether it’ll mean a $250 repair call; or whether we should cut our losses and just replace the whole machine.

But I can say with full confidence that the historical decline in appliance quality is not just my imagination. Dishwashers, stoves, refrigerators, washers, and dryers really don’t last as long as they used to, and fragile integrated digital control boards have made things a lot worse by adding new points of failure (and precious little real value).

How can I be so sure? Because I’ve heard it over and over again from repair pros reaching the end of long careers. And because the industry changes have been beautifully documented online (do read the whole thing).

So, yes, your appliances really will begin rusting almost as soon as they’re delivered to your home because they’re built using thinner metal sheeting and painted using sprays rather than dip basins. Lid switches will snap. Refrigerator door seals will warp and fail. And in no time at all you’ll find yourself in Home Depot or Best Buy checking out your new purchase.

In some ways that’s a good thing.

As Megan McArdle recently observed in the Washington Post, that 1964 Kenmore washer your (grand)parents bought from the Simpsons-Sears catalog may still have been running thirty years later but, measured in terms of 2024 buying power, it also cost around $7,000. Today, you can get a “Home Depot special” for less than $700, replace it every ten years or so, and still be way ahead.

Wait. 1, 2, 3…6. It’s been six paragraphs and I’m still talking about laundry? When are we gonna get to the fun stuff already? Right now, as it turns out.

Declining quality is about much more than a trade-off against cost savings. There’s the loss of competition, as there is now only a small handful of manufacturers responsible for the dozens of brand names “competing” against each other. There’s also the loss of domestic production - like the late and lamented GSW and General Electric Canada (who later merged to became the giant, Camco).

And there are the layers of government-imposed regulations. For instance, there’s:

• Natural Resources Canada's energy efficiency standards for appliances that require manufacturers to meet specific energy consumption limits

• Environment and Climate Change Canada's regulations controlling emissions and the use of certain hazardous materials

• Health Canada's consumer product safety regulations

Drilling down a level, Natural Resources Canada's energy efficiency standards cover:

• Household clothes washers, which are now expected to meet maximum water usage limits measured as L/kWh/cycle and maximum integrated water factor (L/cycle/L)

• Clothes dryers, which must limit electrical consumption as measured by kg/kWh

• Dishwashers, whose maximum total annual energy consumption (kWh) and water consumption (litres/cycle) are capped

• Electric ranges and refrigerators for which the maximum allowable energy consumption is measured in kWh/year

Insofar as such regulations can sometimes improve quality and performance, then great. We are, for instance, now armed with tools that can help us lower our power usage costs.

But, as with everything in life, the benefits delivered by each of those restrictions come with a corresponding cost. Lowering power consumption is fine, but does that mean appliances will now take longer to do the same work or not work as well? Does reduced water consumption for dishwashers and wash machines mean they’ll take longer and/or not clean as well?

And are we sure that the restrictions will actually end up reducing resource consumption? Perhaps the changes will instead just force people to run the same load twice, or to run loads for longer than before. Remember, even older, less-efficient dishwashers would use only 3-5 gallons of hot water for a full load, compared to the 20-40 gallons needed to wash the same dishes by hand in the sink. (I kind of suspect that the most environmentally-friendly approach to serving dinner would involve single-use plastics but…never mind.)

If I had confidence that policy makers inside Natural Resources Canada had done the hard math before changing the law, I might not be quite so uneasy about this.

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) adds controls over the use of substances like refrigerants which can affect energy efficiency and environmental impact. Those include:

• Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) - flame retardants, restricted due to their persistence in the environment and potential to bioaccumulate.

• Mercury - highly toxic and regulated to limit its release into the environment.

• Phthalates - commonly used in plastic components that are restricted due to their potential health impacts.

• Bisphenol A (BPA) - present in some plastic parts and coatings in appliances.

• Lead - often used in soldering and certain components: restricted due to its toxicity and potential environmental impact.

• Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) - used for their water and stain-resistant properties: restricted due to their persistence and bioaccumulative nature.

• Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) - flame retardant used in some appliances: regulated because of its potential environmental impact.

• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) - used as refrigerants: restricted due to their ozone-depleting properties.

I’m not qualified to have an opinion about which - if any - of those should be “rehabilitated” and permitted once again in appliance manufacture. In fact, my grandfather’s business manufacturing thermometers (in his attic-based lab) led, over the years, to some dangerous and harmful exposure to the mercury he was using. So I obviously recognize the value of public health protections. My concerns come from the fear that some restrictions might not have been birthed in a completely objective, science-driven environment. And the people who stand to suffer the most from errors are given no voice in the process.

Health Canada also gets to play in this sandbox. Their job includes enforcing the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act by, among other things, ensuring that dangerous substances can’t find their way into homes and businesses.

In that context, there’s the risk of regulatory overlap with ECCC rules, and of unintended consequences where no one realized that otherwise-dangerous substances could be safely used in appliances. I have no evidence either has actually happened, but, for people operating within sprawling government structures, it might be hard to avoid.

Back in the 1970s, my father worked for a large pharmaceutical company. In that capacity, he was involved with the rollout of at least one new regulation directed by the old Health Protection Branch (whose functions are today spread through the length and breadth of Health Canada).

I didn’t pay attention to all the details at the time, but I do remember how, in my father’s professional assessment, the regulatory process could have been executed with far greater objectivity and vision. But it was also true that he, along with other industry players, only traveled to Ottawa on the government’s invitation so they could contribute their thoughts.

I wonder if that kind of face-to-face dialog with the private sector still happens. Or, in other words, perhaps siloed bureaucrats - for all their genuine experience and talents - are not always the best people to hold all the regulatory cards.