[modriano]

> Even if this thing is 30% more expensive than a non-repairable toaster, I bet many consumers would pick the cheaper one, despite it probably not being the long term financially optimal decision.

Toasters are so cheap that I can't imagine repairing them could be cost effective (ie "financially optimal") unless you assign no value to your time. A new, good-enough toaster costs in the ballpark of $30. I love taking things apart and fixing them, but if the repair involves figuring out the part I have to order or soldering anything, it will take far more than $30 of my time.

This kind of project is for people who love to tinker. The economics do not make sense.

[MrDrMcCoy]

Repairability is not necessarily a factor here. A better toaster may need less repair over its lifetime, and thus be more cost effective over its lifetime than a cheaper toaster that will break sooner and probably make worse toast while it works.

Tangentially related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory

[jklowden]

If the economics make no sense, it’s only because the economics do not account for the cost to the environment. If the retail cost included reclamation, so that there was no waste at all, this kind of toaster would be the cheapest.