I'm for the environment and all, but why are front-loading washing machines so dang expensive? Sam Kazman of The Wall Street Journal investigated and came up with the (usual) culprit: the government!
It might not have been the most stylish, but for decades the top-loading laundry machine was the most affordable and dependable. Now it's ruined—and Americans have politics to thank.
In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as "often mediocre or worse."
How's that for progress?
The culprit is the federal government's obsession with energy efficiency. Efficiency standards for washing machines aren't as well-known as those for light bulbs, which will effectively prohibit 100-watt incandescent bulbs next year. Nor are they the butt of jokes as low-flow toilets are. But in their quiet destruction of a highly affordable, perfectly satisfactory appliance, washer standards demonstrate the harmfulness of the ever-growing body of efficiency mandates.
People have never really pushed back on the fact that many front loaders are not as good as advertised, and frankly most people with average laundry don't even realize it. If there was more consumer awareness instead of buying what looks cool, we'd see a change back, but manufacturers are going to make and sell what people buy - and that's the cool jet engine washer that keeps the kids occupied almost as well as a TV.
but then I wouldn't hate the mean old government for helping to save billions of gallons of increasingly precious water.
See how his argument plays in the southwest and get back to me
As much as people have been ridiculing the "end of the incandescent lightbulb", the creation of the requirement spawned new incandescent bulbs that use 30% less energy to produce the same amount of light. There was very little incentive to invest in that technology before because it was not clear there would be a market. Sure, the initial bulbs will be more expensive, but the prices will drop as the economies of scale kick in.
The government does have a very important role in changing the parameters of business (in this case reducing the risk of investing new technology) in order to let the free market do its work.
I.HATE.IT.
I have pets who tend to make messes on their bedding, and a puppy who sometimes vomits, pees, poops etc on his fleece crate pad, and I had to wash it four times on the longest cycle to get it clean!
It also stinks all the time so I'm forever running empty loads with cold water and bleach to get rid of the mildew smell. If I forget to take a load out within a few hours they reek like pooh and I have to wash them three more times to get the stink out.
I want my top-loading machines back! I'm pretty sure the energy savings and water conservation is negated by how many bloody times I have to keep washing stuff over and over.
Now look up the Competitive Enterprise Institute. They're basically against anything that is even remotely environmentally friendly. Its corporations masquerading as concerned taxpayers.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/home/2011/03/consumer-reports-to-the-new-york-times-washers-are-greener-and-better-.html
takeaway: "Consumer Reports has seen product performance improve or remain at high levels, while energy efficiency standards have become increasingly stringent over the years. Washing machine performance has actually improved while dishwashers and refrigerators performance has remained at high levels."
As for lightbulbs, I'm one of those people who get terrible migraines around fluorescent lights, give me a good strong incandescent any day!
So is that the same government that allows HOA's to enforce ridiculous mandatory watering rules. Water might be precious, but come on, we can't let the surrounding communities see our yards look less then bright green can we?
They've replaced metal gears with plastic (much cheaper) and are using motors that fall apart (I know, my company buys nearly a million fractional HP Chinese motors a year, many of them self-destruct almost immediately.)
The Government rules were written by industry experts, who tried to use the Green revolution as a means of increasing profits, not reducing energy use. There are many outstanding EU sourced machines that are durable, perform very well, and use far less energy and water. But they are expensive, and US consumers aren't that good anymore at distinguishing the difference between cost and value.
I wound up with a relatively cheap top-loader without an agitator, and it's the best washing machine I've ever used.
Neatorama is obviously a liberal/conservative mouthpiece!
In general, the new washer does an adequate job of cleaning, though probably not as good as the top loader it replaced. It does not do nearly as good a job of rinsing the detergent out of the clothes, however. It also has had problems washing flannel bedsheets, because they became wadded up and triggered the unbalanced load cutoff. I wound up having to wring the sheets out by hand, which was a huge pain.