05/23/11 You can chart the course of human progress in terms of how clean our clothing is. In early times people used animal skins, had no change of clothing, and had no soap. By Adam Smith’s day, soap had improved in quality, was produced industrially, and was becoming available to the common man.
In fact, the Industrial Revolution, which is usually discussed in terms of iron, steam, and factories, was actually all about bringing products like soap and underwear – previously only available to the rich – to the common peasants.
Only after WWII did electric automatic clothes washers displace hand-cranked machines. Then detergent replaced soap in the washing process, and competition resulted in much more effective products.
In 1956 the product Wisk was launched as the first liquid laundry detergent. And in 1968 its famous “Ring around the Collar” ads came along.
Other companies followed with products that were even better. Between the 1920s and the 1970s, washing clothes went from a grueling full-time job to a weekly activity that could be accomplished by young children.
Demographic researcher Hans Rosling has called the washing machine the greatest invention in the history of the Industrial Revolution. It liberated homemakers from boiling water and washing clothes. For women around the world, it makes the difference between poverty and prosperity.
Only two generations ago, nearly every mother in the world slaved at washing clothes. Today, no one in the developed world does this. Instead, they can read, do professional work, teach children, hold parties, and generally apply their time to building civilization. As Rosling says, “even the hard core of the green movement use the washing machine.”
But government is working on systematically reversing these advances – attacking the washing machine’s workings at the most fundamental level.
In 1996, Consumer Reports tested 18 models of washing machines. It rated 13 models as excellent and 5 models as very good. They found that with enough hot water and any decent laundry detergent, any machine would get your clothes clean.
In 2007, Consumer Reports tested 21 models and rated none of them as excellent and 7 models as poor; the rest of the models were rated mediocre. The old top-loading machines were mediocre or worse.
Consumer Reports found that in most cases your clothes were nearly as dirty as they were before washing. The newer front-loading machines worked better, but they were much more expensive and had mold problems, and you cannot add a dropped sock once the machine is started. None of the top-loading machines performed as well as a mediocre top-loading machine from 1996.
The government’s meddlesome hand is at fault. Between 1996 and 2007 the government’s energy-efficiency standards were dramatically increased. In order to meet those standards, manufacturers had to switch to the inferior front-loading washers, which are more “energy efficient,” and to design models that used less water. Less water in the machine means the machine uses less energy to rotate the clothes with the water and detergent. It also means less rinsing, which is a vital component to getting clothes clean.
The result is that clothes come out of the washer still dirty. The easy stuff like sweat is mostly removed, but all the tough stuff, like grease and body oils, largely remains. Most people are unaware of this problem, either because they have an older model, they don’t do their own laundry, or they are just oblivious to this type of thing.
Among those who face this problem, the answers are few. Some do multiple smaller loads with larger water levels, but of course this results in higher – not lower – energy and water usage. Others have tried to solve the problem by using more detergent, but this usually does not help – it can make the situation worse – and it reduces the durability of the machine – yet another inefficiency.
So there you have it. Politicians, environmentalists, and meddlesome bureaucrats have teamed up to dream up another attempt to serve the public interest. Left to its own, the invisible hand of entrepreneurial competition would have naturally made doing laundry easier, better, cheaper, and more efficient. Instead we have more expensive, more inefficient, and truly ineffective clothes-washing machines.
Then there have been changes to laundry detergent, which have in combination with the “energy efficient machines” led to a return of “Ring around the Collar.”
The invisible hand of the marketplace is the foundation of a free society and the source of prosperity. The invisible fist of government is the foundation of plunder and the source of social problems.
If we chart social progress by clean clothing, it is clear that we are headed backward in time. But the trend is easily reversed with a small change toward laissez-faire.
Regards,
Mark Thornton
for The Daily Reckoning
Mark Thornton
Mark Thornton is a senior resident fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and is the book review editor for The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is the author of The Economics of Prohibition, coauthor of Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, and the editor of The Quotable Mises, The Bastiat Collection, and An Essay on Economic Theory.
The Daily Reckoning is your premier source for making sense of the news Washington and Wall Street generate. Each business day, The Daily Reckoning calls on its stable of world-class writers and thinkers to show you how to get ahead.
Start your 100% FREE subscription to The Daily Reckoning today and you’ll get a free research report, “How to Survive the Fall of Social Security.” Simply enter your email address below to get your free report and join over 495,000 worldwide Daily Reckoning subscribers!
We Respect Your Privacy and We will
Never Share or Sell Your Email Address
I wonder if the people in the Mississippi delta are worried about conserving water. If I lived there I would think of Al Gore every time I double flushed my toilet.
Some areas need to conserve water. Most of us don’t. Are politicians or environmentals able to make the distinction?
Granted, Mr. Thornton is correct. But many
households are paying a lot more for water than they used to. At some point it becomes
a rational economic calculation; many front
loaders, and even some of the new agitator-
less top loaders save enough to pay for themselves, even if one uses a second rinse.
Also, the new models are gradually improving, as a slew of engineers are working on these issues. Of course, none
of this justifies the government meddling.
we need to preserve an environment that can support human life. some people are on the firing line making decisions the best they can, while others grumble about the good old days. i’m a landscaper and my clothes get filthy. i do not care if they come out of the machine still slightly soiled. kids in India and Bangladesh deserve a future.
I totally agree!!! When I called the service man out after my first shockingly uncleaned load, he told me he would be happy to exchange it but that this is the way with all of them. He said there are so many overrides built into the computer that the only way to really get hot water in it is to set my H2O temp high, then use the hoses and bypass the machine, putting the hoses directly into the tub. Which, of course, means I have to stand there and babysit the thing.
We are sacrificing hygiene for energy – ridiculous – as tepid water will NOT kill nor cleanse.
Its not just about using less water, its about using less detergent. Less water means less detergent is required. The phosphates in laundry detergent produce algal blooms, killing our fisheries.
The invisible hand of the market often has a hard time with these “tragedy of the commons” problems.
This article is not up to the usual standards of the Daily Reckoning. It read more like an Andy Rooney rant than the typical well thought out articles.
First: Did Consumer Reports use the exact same standards of testing washing machines in 1996 as it did in 2007? Did the ratings only take into account cleaning ability or did they take into account several other things? Also, has the fact that laundry detergents have been reformulated for various reasons been taken into consideration? High phosphate detergents have nearly completely disappeared. These are all things that should be considered if you’re going to use research by Consumer Reports to jump to the conclusion that clothes are dirtier, therefore government intervention is bad.
Second: Are people using their new washing machines properly? Machines that use less water require soap that does not suds as much as top loading washing machines. This would be akin to buying a diesel vehicle and putting regular gasoline in it and expecting satisfactory results.
Third: Front loading machines have been around for over half a century, long before the government mandated higher energy efficiency and were selling well enough on their own. If they didn’t actually get clothes clean why have they been in laundromats for decades? Is it possible that maybe people aren’t taking the time to learn how to use their new technology and then blaming the technology instead of admitting that they really don’t know how to use the machines they’ve bought? I’ve used top loading washing machines, front loading washing machines, wash tubs, and the stovetop boiling method and my laundry gets clean because I know how do to my freaking laundry.
Fourth: Seriously, buy yourself a Bosch, Asko, Miele, or Whirlpool front loader, figure out how to use it properly, and then tell me your old top loading washing machine got clothes cleaner with a straight face. As for the person who has a front-loader that’s not getting your clothes clean, don’t take the repairman’s word that new washer’s don’t get clothes clean. He was (at worst?) just being lazy and didn’t want to fix your washing machine, exchange it, or take the time to properly educate you about how your new machine works or (at best?) truly believes what he’s saying and should reeducate himself. You’re right that tepid water won’t kill germs. You’ll either need bleach or sustained hot water usage and there are several front-loading washing machines that have sanitization cycles that are capable of actually doing just that. For the record most old top loading machines had no built-in-hot-water heater to boost the temperature of the water coming in (which was almost always too low to sanitize) and relied on chemical methods for sanitization.
Fifth: Yes, the government needs to be less meddlesome (I’m a dyed-in-the-wool social libertarian and student of Austrian Economics who wants to see as little government intervention as possible) but if you’re going to give examples give ones that are actually true. Modern front loading washing machines and modern energy efficient top loading washing machines (like Staber and Fisher & Paykel) get clothes cleaner than the older washing machines of yesteryear WHEN used properly and functioning correctly IN SPITE of government intervention.
Sources:
Personal Experience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing_machine
http://laundry.about.com/od/clotheswashers/a/topvsfront.htm
Mark is exactly CORRECT in saying the new-fangled washing machines do NOT clean our clothes. My 1996 Kenmore had to be replaced 2 years ago. My mother’s old Kenmore had lasted 25 years. My husband & I went in search of a new machine for us & although skeptical, I agreed to try a top-loading HE model. I knew before long that it just wasn’t cleaning the clothes-how c,an you clean anything at all without the proper amount of water? Once again, the government has its way, because it is not about We The People anymore!
One more note: it isn’t only my machine- I frequently do a friend’s laundry in his new top-loader machine, with worse results than mine.
@ Joanne Williams – Phosphates have been removed from many detergents including laundry detergent for years. Your arguement about algal blooms is a non-start.