Too bad our planet isn't disposable

Back in the 1920s, a group of executives migrated to General Motors from Dupont, the chemical and dye-making giant. At Dupont, they had learned from their customers in fashion and textiles—America’s  third largest and fastest growing industry—the strategy of making customers want this year’s products by making last year’s products look outdated, even though they were still perfectly good.

The newly-arrived executives at GM turned to sleek styling to make their new models of cars more desirable. Henry Ford had built his Model T market on product reliability, but the ability to last was now out. The ability of a product to make its owners look fashionable was in. GM finally beat Ford out of its market dominance.

Fashion obsolescence, the technique of getting consumers to purchase the same product over and over because of stylistic changes, soon spread from the automobile industry to everything from refrigerators to watches. It is now largely the basis of the American marketplace.

The picture above shows a line of people I saw last Friday waiting to buy Apple’s new iPhone. The phones went on sale in the ATT store these people stood outside at 6PM. The kids I talked to at the front of the line had been there since 6AM. Most of the people in the line already had cell phones, but they wanted to have the new it phone. Full disclosure: recovering gadget addict that I am, I might have been in the line myself a few months ago.

Some say that e-waste is becoming one of the biggest toxicity problems facing our culture. In the US, municipal incineration of e-waste is the largest source of cancer-producing dioxin and among the largest point source of heavy metal contaminations in the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, by 2002, over 130 million still-working cell phones had been retired. Thanks to the fashion obsolescence marketing strategy pioneered back in the 1920s at GM, the cell phone now has the shortest life cycle of any electronic device.

The question is: how can the environment sustain a society where even a $500 gadget has become a disposable object? Is there a sustainable way to satisfy the gadget addictions of people like the former me, or will we have to go cold turkey? Can we change our buying habits? Can we get the producers to change? Do we need a whole new basis for our economy?

Comments

[simmmchen]

When the software on my cell phone was messed up I went to T-Mobile to get a software update. They were not interested in what was wrong with the phone. They simply gave me a new one, although the problem could have been fixed by hooking up my phone to their computer. A matter of maybe 10 minutes. They should change their ways!

Thank you for writing this blog! There is so much to learn!

[patti]

I set up another line so my teenager could get his own cell phone. The rep told me, "Ma'am, you are eligible for an update." Which means I can get a new phone. "But my phone works fine." "Well, whenever you're ready."

[elena]

Some say that e-waste is becoming one of the biggest toxicity problems facing our culture. In the US, municipal incineration of e-waste is the largest source of cancer-producing dioxin and among the largest point source of heavy metal contaminations in the atmosphere.

this is very interesting, Colin do you have a source for it?
i'd like to use it in something i am writing.
thanks!

[Bluestar]

There are a couple of reasons I don't have the new iphone yet. One is that I don't have the money and the other is that I just got the cell phone I have about six months ago. It works just fine and I actually really like it a lot. But isn't there something to be said for advancing technologies too? I guess I'm playing devil's advocate here, but the iphone isn't just a pretty new phone, it incorporates a lot of newer, faster technologies. I'm not saying a new phone should be purchased EVERY time some new gadget comes along, but where do you draw the line? What if everyone stopped buying new phones? Would the technology be developed as quickly as it is being done now?

I've been trying to convince myself that the reason I would get one would be because of the leap in technology that the iphone has made, and that if I got one it would be the last phone I buy for many years (that may be true, I had my last cell phone for four years until it just died on me, and the one before that for three years until it went through the wash and stopped working), but I know that's just me trying to justify a purchase that, when it really comes down to it, I simply don't need.

I've been trying to really evaluate any purchases I make based on whether I really *need* whatever it is, and then if I decide that I do I try to buy the most eco friendly product I can. It has certainly worked out so that I barely buy anything new anymore, but something like this is just SO tempting - both because of the marketing (I know, I'm a sucker) and also because of the nagging little voice that says "I deserve to get one, I don't buy myself anything anymore, surely the very limited spending I do now would offset the waste I'd put out by buying a new phone I don't need in any way..." I know, backwards thinking. I'm just being honest.

All that said, I like my little Sony phone and will probably stick with it until it dies. *sigh*

[Katy]

I agree that we cannot continue to rush out to get the next new thing whenever it appears.

However, my palm recently died (I'm doing the hipster pda thing now and it works quite well) and at some point my ipod and cell phone will too. At that point I'd consider getting an iphone as I would be replacing three gadgets with one.

[Greenpa]

Colin, you're cracking me up, here! "here's the question" you say; then state at least SIX questions, each one of which needs a book, or two, to answer! You'll get plenty of discussion, anyway!

One story- the Big Lie they've developed is that "stuff" wears out, and must be replaced, anyway. Decades ago, I bought 3 pairs of ugly synthetic heavy nylon boot socks at a real Army Surplus store. They were plenty comfortable, and did what socks are supposed to do. I used them for... you may want to sit down... 20 YEARS, and they did NOT wear out. No kidding; wore them constantly. I know, this sounds like the urban myth of the suppressed "100 mpg carburetor" - but this is from my own personal experience. Somebody out there knows how to make really durable socks. but....

"Stuff" CAN be vastly more durable than we have been taught to expect. I'm delighted if I get 6 months out of a pair of socks nowadays. And yes; this has to change.

[Scott]

The trend seems to be "stuff as much into a small space as you can". Now the iPhone actually plays movies. That sounds like an important necessity! However none of the cell phones are as small as the old communication devices. They were called dimes and fit right in your pocket. Many people even carried more than one. When you needed to communicate you just stopped at a "communication station", dropped in the dime and when the person answered you spoke into the handset. Later, the dimes were replaced with an upgrade called the quarter but they worked about the same. When cell phones were introduced there were suddenly fewer of these "communication stations" and were much less convenient so dimes and quarters became blase'.

Dimes and quarters lasted for years though without ever wearing out. And if you should happen to drop one in the toilet, just fish it out, dry it off and it was good as new. Drop one in the field and the horse steps on it...no problem, just dust it off, put it in your pocket and go on. Good as new.

I have a cell phone. I don't use it much and my wife likes me to have it. Otherwise it would be gone. It has all sorts of neat gadgets on it. Even some games. I don't use them. I spent two-thirds of my life without a cell phone and the world did not spin into complete disarray because I couldn't be reached instantly or I couldn't get the baseball score the millisecond the game ended. Do I really need this thing? Duh...no. I wish I had never fallen for them years ago. It has me on a leash.

The space shuttle has two solid rocket boosters, one on each side. They put out maximum thrust until the moment they finally burn out. The information glut in your pocket is exactly the same. It only appears it will forever take you higher and higher but eventually-and you can trust me on this one-you will burn out. To quote Simon and Garfunkel "Slow down you're going too fast, you got to make the morning last..."

Let's bring back the ubiquitous payphone, plant some roses to smell, and for heavens sake, talk to the person next to us instead of someone miles away. It's easy, you you begin by smiling and just saying "Hi."

[Simon Huntley]

What was interesting about this blog was when you told stories about yourself - I'll be honest that it is no longer worth reading about these high-flown environmental ideas that have been said a million times before. Colin, please tell YOUR story -- or are you holding back for your book? Show don't tell?

[Alex]

To Scott - And with payphones, you had to carry change around to make calls. You had to have people going out to each payphone on a regular basis to retrieve the change. And perhaps most importantly, payphones are fixed in place. You need a phone when you break down on some back-country road? Out hiking? Well, either put payphones everywhere... or just carry a cell phone. They do have many advantages over payphones.

And I'll give you a hint - I talk to people miles away because, get this - I'd rather talk to my friends and family than random strangers. Unless you're suggesting that we only care about people that live within commuting distance of us, talking to people far away is pretty much unavoidable.

In general - if you want to rail against 'planned' or 'fashion' obsolescence, pick a better target than cell phones - or most any electronics, for that matter. I got my first cell phone four years ago, to use for general coordinating (like when plans change and it is easier, cheaper, and faster to use a cell phone than a pay phone.) It made calls, and had some 8-bit games bundled to the gray-scale screen. That was it. Now, I don't know specific specs (easy enough to produce, though) but modern phones like the iPhone? The technology is much more advanced, fantastically so.

Look, advocate a proper level of technology for a given problem maybe, but don't try and put this down as an example of 'fashion obsolescence.' Doing that is either disingenuous and deceitful or idiotic.

[Handygirl]

My dryer--barely 18 months old and, unfortunately, equipped with the fancy keypad instead of plain old buttons and dials--has started, well, wigging out. It works, it doesn't work, it beeps incessantly, it does nothing at all. Called the Maytag repairman, who came out and said the parts to replace the electronics would cost $500 with installation. That would be...$50 more than we paid for the dryer! What the heck is that? Thank goodness they're under warranty, or we would be faced with potentially throwing away an entire dryer that is not even two years old. My last one kept running for 18 years. I'm just completely disgusted at the throw-away economy we've built. Even when you don't want something new, you're virtually forced into it by the lack of reasonable repair service. It's totally disheartening. (And, yes, I normally use my clothesline, but I live in Florida and it's been raining here very unpredictably--typical summer).

[Sophie]

"What if everyone stopped buying new phones? Would the technology be developed as quickly as it is being done now?"

No, the technology would probably not be developed as quickly as it is now...but we see this as a problem only because we have been conditioned to see it as a problem. If cell phone technology stops at the iPhone - so what? This won't hurt anyone; no one really *needs* these gadgets. Perhaps the technology developers can stop trying to outdo each other with the newest, coolest, most impressive gadgets and start working on how to make the lifespans of our existing gadgets last longer, or start working on how to make them less toxic. OR, perhaps they can turn their attentions to solving some of the world's more pressing problems, like what to do with all the tech waste they have already created.

[Alex]

Sophie - "No, the technology would probably not be developed as quickly as it is now...but we see this as a problem only because we have been conditioned to see it as a problem."

No, we see it as a problem because that is a problem. Whether or not it's a problem that's outweighed by the benefits is open, but it is a problem. As for people who need it, off the top of my head - doctors (my hospital has issued these iPhonesque/tablet computers to streamline care), emergency services people, including soldiers, and people who may be away from established infrastructure - hikers, researchers, etc.

Also, I thought that the problem people here were railing against wasn't that the things were breaking, but that they were being 'fashionably' obsoleted. ?

[Mimi]

Hi Alex,
I just had to respond to a couple of things you wrote:

>>You need a phone when you break down on some back-country road? Out hiking? Well, either put payphones everywhere... or just carry a cell phone. They do have many advantages over payphones.

And I'll give you a hint - I talk to people miles away because, get this - I'd rather talk to my friends and family than random strangers. Unless you're suggesting that we only care about people that live within commuting distance of us, talking to people far away is pretty much unavoidable.<<

Back in the old days people talked to strangers and people were generally nice to each other and felt a sense of community. If your car broke down, you often did not need a cell phone because people would stop and help a stranger in need. There was not such a fear of strangers as there is now. We have become an insulated society due to our toys.

>>Look, advocate a proper level of technology for a given problem maybe, but don't try and put this down as an example of 'fashion obsolescence.' Doing that is either disingenuous and deceitful or idiotic.<<

Colin had a point in making his post. How often do we wait for our toys to break before we replace them? How often do we even stop to think of repairing our gadgets instead of replacing them? People have a mindset now that having the latest toy makes them look rich or cool. I have a 17 year old car with peeling paint. I only use my car to drive the 4 miles to work and back. Everyone I know replaces their cars every 2-3 years and they make sure to belittle me about by beater car. My car is fine and passes the smog test every other year. I see no need to replace it unless I want to be cool.

[Scott]

Mimi-Eloquently put. We have lost all sense of community in our society. We have lost touch with the planet we live on. It is why we don't care what happens to it, or to our neighbor. It is every person for themselves and if you are stuck or need a friend the attitude is-just call someone and don't bother me.

I am not anti-cell phone and certainly they are convenient but I am more and more of the opinion that "just because we can, doesn't mean we should." A cell phone is now games, movies, weather, e-mail, camera, internet.... Do we really need all this crap? I really don't think so.

[robert]

Mimi- I picked up a very similar thing from Alex's comments - but in addition; "And I'll give you a hint - I talk to people miles away because, get this - I'd rather talk to my friends and family than random strangers."

Why am I not surprised? I've run into this attitude more frequently, now that the cell phones make it so easy. Alex's writing exudes the absolute certainty that only comes with constant affirmation from.... gosh, your own little circle, that all think alike. Sure is easy, though; you never have to think.

[A Million Paths]

E-waste really is a much bigger problem than Colin touched on. It's not just cell phones - computers, televisions, etc.

An old wired article touches on it: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/01/57151

But I wrote a 40-paged paper on this my senior year of college and here's what I remember:

IBM was accidentally poisoning people in San Jose for years, as chemicals from their chip making plant leaked into the drinking water supply.

Chipmakers "clean" suits (i.e. the white suits that people make when working with chips) protect chips from people, but doesn't protect the people from the chips. The chemicals in the chips have cause spontaneous abortions amongst pregnant workers, as well unusually virulent cancers among the workers.

Maybe things have gotten better, in the past five years.

Things get worse, however, when you go abroad: this national geographic article details what happens to our waste abroad: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1108_051108_electronic_waste.html

Add to the fact that our need for coltan (a rare metal used in cell phones, and microchips) helped perpetuate the war in the congo: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1468772.stm

(The Congo holds 80% of the worlds reserves of the stuff)

...well it's enough to make you hold onto your ailing electronics.

[Kami]

I found it rather absurd that people waited in line to get one. I can't even imagine what could be so great about it to justify that!

I guess I just don't buy into this gotta have the new IT thing...for electronics anyway. I am guilty of wanting the newest rage in clothing though. Got a long way to go....

[Susan Och]

The newly-arrived executives at GM turned to sleek styling to make their new models of cars more desirable. Henry Ford had built his Model T market on product reliability, but the ability to last was now out. The ability of a product to make its owners look fashionable was in. GM finally beat Ford out of its market dominance.

Yikes! Where to start with this one?

How about a little family history? In the 1920's, my Grandpa Gordon Harry was a young engineer at GM, fresh out of University of Michigan. Now, Model Ts may have seemed reliable in their day, but like all cars of that era, their fuel systems were gravity-fed. You couldn't run unless the fuel tank (usually mounted on top of the rear of the car) was higher than the engine. If you needed to climb a hill, the standard maneuver was to turn the car around and drive up backwards.

My grandfather was given the task of solving this problem. The solution was the camshaft driven fuel pump. The pump is powered by a lever that was pushed by cams that turned when the engine turned. You needed a battery -- no more starting your engine with a hand crank-- but you could run smoothly up hill and at much higher speeds.

I'm not sure when it went into mass-production, but by the end of WW II, the camshaft driven fuel pump was in every car made, up until electric fuel pumps and fuel injection took over.

Did GM come to dominate the auto industry because of "sleek styling" and fashion? Or was it because their cars went up hills?

According to my grandparents, not many cars were being sold after the stock market crash of 1929. Grandpa, and the smart guys he worked with, were lucky because they still had jobs. Their pay was cut in half, then cut in half again, but they still had jobs. My grandparents subsisted, and fed the extended family, on their garden, their chickens, and on what game Grandpa could shoot. At work, the guys were still solving problems and inventing, and fine tuning their creations. My uncle tells of the experimental cars Grandpa used to drive home. There was just a driver's seat; the rest was filled with gauges and dials measuring every aspect of the car's performance.

Grandpa kept the patent papers for his fuel system work in a file cabinet, but he didn't talk about that stuff in his later years. The stories he did tell were about his work at the GM Proving Grounds in California, in World War II. It seems that General Patton was having trouble with his tanks in the deserts of northern Africa, because the sand, wind, and heat would clog the carburetors of his tanks. Grandpa was sent out to California to solve this problem, spending months in the desert driving the tank version of those test cars he used to drive home at night.

They made the tanks run in the desert! We won the war! The engineers had spent all that time in the 30's and war years inventing things that nobody could afford. Now the whole world was their market, and everyone was ready to buy things new.

Cars changed a lot in the 50's and 60's, but I think fashion was secondary. I think there was a lot of pent-up technology waiting to be tried. Some things became classics, some ideas were dogs, but there were a lot of first-adopters ready to invest in the next new idea.

Today's first adopters are the ones driving the market for the rest of us, so that when we finally do buy our first cell phone or solar panel or hybrid car, they will have become much more reliable and affordable. Colin, you are a fashion-oriented person, very impressed with how things look and not too curious about how things work. Of the two cars in my driveway, you would probably be more impressed with the 1989 Plymouth Horizon, with it's small size and retro aura. But the 1996 Camry, boring as it is, is larger, cushier, and gets better mileage with fewer emissions. Often, newer IS better.

I'm not saying that my grandfather was the world's greatest hero, or that he was anything special at all. I think he was one of many people who were living life fully at that time, rising to the challenges of their era, and doing what needed to be done, whether it was Grandpa making tanks run in the desert, or my spoiled southern belle grandma rolling up her sleeves and plucking a chicken to feed 10 people every Sunday. People may rail against the people that envisioned the interstate highway system but they are the same people that defeated the Nazis.

If I can find anything positive about our impending global climate crisis, it is in contemplating how the Depression and Dust Bowl years hardened my flapper grandparents, and their generation, into the sort of innovative, practical people that went on to solve all kinds of seemingly insurmountable problems. That's why I'm not too impressed with "innovations' like drinking our of a glass jar, and much more interested about how we can cut CO2 emmissions on the whole planet.

[Val]

I saw a ridiculous and disturbing ad about Sprint phones in a movie theatre recently. It asked what you dreamt about when you were a kid - traveling to the moon? I'm not sure what else. But then it said, did you dream about a little screen that would tell you stories, entertain you, and tell you how to get somewhere. If you did, here's the Sprint phone. I thought gag me - are we really that shallow?

Anyway, also, I wanted to comment on the water usage info (per previous post about bottled water) by referring to Linda Cockburn's great book Living the Good Life (about living without spending money for 6 months) - she talks about how much potable water we flush down the toilet and broaches the subject of compost toilets.

Lastly, I was recently researching window a/c units as I am not able to convince my husband to live without one in the New York heat, and I found information that portable a/c's use dramatically less energy than window boxes, plus they are much easier to install and can be moved, so you can use it in more than one place. I'm not an expert but read this excerpt below and started to wonder more about the pros and cons:

"Whats the difference between a portable ac and a window unit?

Window AC's are traditional AC's that you mount only on windows. They maybe cheaper than portable AC but in the long run you end up spending a lot of money on electricity bills compared to portable AC's. Portable AC's are MOST energy efficient AC's ever manufactured. They save you a lot of electricity bills, you can also move them from one room to another. (have it in living room in day time and move it to bedroom at night and moving is very easy as they have castors). Each AC comes with ONE set of hose and window kit, if you need TWO to set it up in two rooms, you can buy one extra hose and window kit for $20- $35 depending on which brand you are getting. Unlike window AC's you can install a portable AC in basement, garage, attic, any apartment, even in boats, trucks, infact in any place where you have a 110V outlet or generator. NEVER COMPARE WINDOW AC BTU's TO PORTABLE AC BTU's. What this means is if someone has 5000 BTU window AC in a bedroom, then not necessarily a 5000 BTU portable AC will be a good replacement. Please go by manufacturers recommendations on sq. ft. Window AC's may sometimes be cheaper than the portable AC's, but they are not convinient and they don't save energy bills and when you buy the right kind of portable AC you not only enjoy the cold room temperature in summer time but also end up saving a lot of money every month. Plus all the portable AC's mostly have dehumidfying fuction inbuilt for free and the capabilities of killing bacteria and preventing dust particles in the room. So they cool and purify the air at the same time."

The site is http://www.kingersons.com/faq-airconditioner.html.

The specs on a portable vs. window unit are also compared below (from Sears product info):

10,000 BTU Portable
66 KW hour per year
10.5 EER
Not Energy Star Compliant

5,300 BTU Window Unit
490 KW hour per year
10.8 EER
Yes Energy Star Compliant

Even though I would prefer not to use one, many people will not tolerate the heat - so if this is true about the energy usage, it would be great if it was common knowledge.

It's a bit confusing. Anyone have any more info on these ac's?

[dlfbelgium]

I didn't want to whip this one out, but since you mentioned coltan... I just heard about this metal from the Congo in this horrifying article on the war in the Congo:
http://johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=863

It's incredible what our consumerism drives.

We consume blindly without knowing the effects of our own purchases. Do the companies supply themselves as blindly as we do? In part yes, in part no. Just like us.

[donthewanderer]

There is a chinese proverb that I found in a simple living book a couple of years back that always helps me when I see the ads for the newest coolest whatever, it goes...

'We don't buy more than we need,
we don't need more than we use,
and we don't use more than we need to get by,
until we learn to need less'

I still buy things for fun, like my new "used" fixed gear bike, but I find I really don't want all those things that I think I want.

[emily]

Colin, I have a question about community, because I looked up some of the anti-NIM criticism on Idyllopus's archive site. People were suggesting that you weren't aware of your neighbors' names (I wonder where that detail came from), and maybe if you knew them, you all could team up and talk to your building's super about turning the heat down and making it efficient in winter... and it would make more difference than the rest of your project. It all went in that vein. "Why build online community instead of focusing on the people directly around you?"

So: do you try to change the habits of people in your life? Do you lobby your friends to use reusable bottles, bring cloth bags to the store, air-dry their clothes, etc? I'm not attacking, I'm just curious. After all, it's not like you're failing to reach out to people.

Comment for Susan Och: what your Depression-era grandparents did to get by may be commendable, and I am sure many other families did the same, but I don't think that this discussion is about who did or didn't re/invent the wheel. This is about what WE are doing NOW in order to make immediate change in our world, and considering the impending crisis, most reasonable people will remember that every step counts. Even if we are in the painful process of retracing steps. Our grandparents may be good examples, but we live a very different world. And let's not forget that our grandparents often moved out to the suburbs, requiring even more cars; they turned to canned foods as soon as it was cheap and available; and they hardly knew how to deal with the accumulating piles of human-manufactured trash, let alone realize that the lifestyle they aspired to was unsustainable.

[Lily]

I do not yet own a cell phone. I guess I never got over the "cell phones cause cancer" thing. But I have watched the world become completely addicted to them. We are addicted to the convenience. When someone is talking on the phone that person cannot possibly be fully engaged in the what's going on around them. I see this all the time in the city, people talking on the phone while driving or walking (and cycling or skateboarding) down the street only partially aware of their surroundings. Yes cell phones are great for emergencies and connecting with friends and family, but out in public they put up more walls than they take down.

I was given an iPod as a gift and noticed immediately the feeling of being one step removed from the public sphere around me. It's like I'm wearing an invisible shield when I wear my headphones. Strangers are less likely to strike up a conversation if they think I can't hear them and am absorbed in my own little world. Does this strengthen our communities?

As for cell phones etc. contributing to e-waste, my dream for the (hopefully near) future is that industry is made responsible for the full life cycle of the product they have seduced us into buying. If they are going to put out a sexy new cell phone every two months, and expect us to buy it, at the very least they should take back the "old" ones for complete recycling. The recycled coltan could be used again in new phones reducing the threat to endangered gorilla habitat in the Congo etc. I want to see all industry doing this, computers, cars, everything. It should be mandatory. Yes, consumers need to purchase more responsibly, but with advertising so pervasive and so seductive, many of us are caught in it's spell, and buy things we don't need.

The tobacco industry was forced to take resposibility for selling us an addictive, life threatening product, so too must other industry take responsibility for inducing us to buy, buy, buy. We're addicted to consuming, to the ultimate peril of our planet and us. End of rant.

[Ben]

One sad thing about the iPhone (and I say this someone who wants one one day) is that you can't replace the battery. The battery is likely to last about a year, and many will make it two years, but after that you would have to send it to apple and pay them to open up the case and replace the new battery. Some thing with iPods. I think this part of their assumption that no one will want a 2-year old iPhone, they are assuming these things will last for 1-2 years and then people will buy new models.

Apple is getting pretty good about recycling and reducing electronic waste though, so they should get some credit for that.

[Shanathalas]

"Do we need a whole new basis for our economy?"

This right here is the 64000$ question. We do indeed need a new basis for the world's economy. Currently, increased profit for shareholders is the model. But for this increased profit you need increased customers and increased resources. The resources are already running out, and as any ecologist can tell you, world populations will soon fall, either through our own forethought of population control or through the massive "crash" die-off that will occur when the earth is far too poisoned/desertified to sustain its population.

Making a washing machine/sock/phone that lasts ten years is entirely possible. But were is the exponential growth for the shareholders? If this model doesn't change, neither will the products.

In my heart I like think that people will see the error of their ways and change. But in my head I know it's very unlikely. And this isn't just "big corporations". We all play a part in this system. Where do we think the interest in our 401k (I think this is what you yanks call it), RRSP or Superannuation comes from?