you just came up with arbitrary cost to arbitrary appliance with arbitrary lengths of time. Unless these figures are based on some statistical relevance this whole argument is moot.
Sure, it may not be exactly what people here would want, but it's not necessarily a bad TV, if we hypothesize someone who is choosing between repairing something 5 years old or buying a new one. With what the TV industry has done lately, it's almost certainly better than what they're replacing.
And at the very least, you're risking $200 for a repair. Labor may not cost that much out of the gate, but repair parts can get expensive fast simply because stocking obsolete panels for several years before someone finally buys one has a certain cost associated with it. Factor in the risk of expensive parts, factor in the risk that the repair won't actually work for one reason or another (misdiagnosis, the repair fixes one worn part but there's a dozen others ready to break), and it doesn't take much before replacing the TV is the better choice for the consumer.
That said, TVs are also the worst-case scenario, because TV prices have plunged lately in a way that even the computer industry would be a bit jealous of. It makes the case for repair pathologically poor. Many other things have much better cases to be made; appliances haven't plunged in price, and have large landfill footprints. Bicycles can last a long time if you care for them, and bicycle shops have the ability to repair most things quickly enough that they don't have to charge "by the hour" but can just charge flat fees for various tasks. etc.
It's almost like people already have a decent grasp on when it does and when it doesn't make sense to fix something.
Nobody demolishes a house and builds a new one when a window breaks. And nobody throws away a car with a flat tyre or a bicycle with a broken chain.
I volunteered for a couple years at the Ohio City Bicycle Co-op[0], and helped fix for sale countless bikes that needed 15-30 minutes of work to correct whatever the original problem was.
You're right that a bicycle with busted chain remains viable transportation given a little elbow grease. That said, people who bought a $150 bike probably aren't that invested in cycling anyway, and so when it breaks, even with a trivial repair, it's effectively done for.
I know I'm invoking stereotypes about people who aren't invested in something and get into it in the cheapest way possible, but easily-fixable cheap bikes are the bread and butter at OCBC.
Right?
For example, my mum has a bike like that. She's been putting off repairs for some 15 years now. Mostly it just needs some love from someone to adjust gears and stuff to work again. She knows it's still a working bike so she doesn't toss or replace. But it's easier to just avoid using a bike than to invest the energy to fix that one. We've tried a couple of times but it's juuuust bad enough to need a professional, which increases logistics exponentially.
My point is, abandoned and unused is very different from thrown away and replaced.
I think that over time these costs could come down if there was demand as there would be competition and probably sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile. I would like to see more devotion to maintenance and repair but currently the numbers seem unfavorable at least for small appliances.
If you change the purchasing power parity figures a lot, then it will be different. Fixing a TV may make more sense in Russia, for instance, than Sweden, not to mention some third-world countries.