The topic at hand is recyclability. You may have not throw things away but it is widely accepted and frankly utterly obvious - IKEA furniture has a short lifespan and it ends up being thrown away more according to the GP of this thread.
The original anecdote is that there were very few IKEA items in a store for recycled goods. The point you seem to be ignoring is tjoff's comment that IKEA products are so good that you can resell them and don't have to resort to donating them.
Here's my anecdata:
My desk is made by IKEA. It's sitting in front of me right now, having been disassembled, moved, and reassembled 5 times.
I had an IKEA bed that I got rid of a couple years ago. I ended up doing that by putting it on Craigslist and selling it for cash. I don't remember exactly how long it took, but the turnaround time for the whole thing was super fast.
>> The original anecdote is that there were very few IKEA items in a store for recycled goods. The point you seem to be ignoring is tjoff's comment that IKEA products are so good that you can resell them and don't have to resort to donating them.
That doesn't make any sense to me. Overall lifespan of the product is short - doesn't matter how many hands it changes!
Eventually more IKEA products end up in the landfill. Think about it from a macro perspective.
Let's take an exemple:
- A coffee table that lasts 3 years from Ikea that has had 10 owners
- A coffee table that lasts 20 years from Room & Board that also has had 10 owners
Which one do you think is going to end up in the landfill faster? Doesn't matter if its resellability is high? At some point, it will fail and end up in the landfill.
Now you're begging the question. In the original anecdote, we started with something we know based on observation—that very few IKEA products end up in stores selling recycled goods—and are offered the conclusion that this is because they shortly end up in the landfill due to their quality.
However, you've now taken that (flawed) inference and are presenting it as the starting point—as if it were an axiom, rather than the very thing that is in contention.
You’re circling around the argument.