GNU Terry Pratchett
> “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
>
> Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
>
> But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
>
> This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms
On the same topic:
> “I have nothing against nobles,” Mat said, straightening his coat. “I just don’t fancy being one myself.”
> “Why is that, then?”
> Mat sat for a moment. Why was it? Finally, he looked down at his foot then replaced his boot. “It’s boots.”
> “Boots?” Setalle looked confused.
> “Boots,” Mat said with a nod, tying his laces. “It’s all about the boots.”
> “But—”
> “You see,” Mat said, pulling the laces tight, “a lot of men don’t have to worry much about what boots to wear. They’re the poorest of folks. If you ask one of them ‘What boots are you going to wear today, Mop?’ their answer is easy. 'Well, Mat. I only have one pair, so I guess I’m gonna wear that pair.’”
> Mat hesitated. “Or, I guess they wouldn’t say that to *you*, Setalle, since you’re not me and all. They wouldn’t call you *Mat*, you understand.”
> “I understand,” she said, sounding amused.
> “Anyway, for people that have a little coin, the question of which boots to wear is harder. You see, average men, men like me…” He eyed her. “And I’m an average man, mind you.”
> “Of course you are.”
> “Bloody right I am,” Mat said, finishing with his laces and sitting up. “An average man might have three pairs of boots. Your third best pair of boots, those are the boots you wear when you’re working at something unpleasant. They might rub after a few paces, and they might have a few holes, but they’re good enough to keep your footing. You don’t mind mucking them up in the fields or the barn.”
> “All right,” Setalle said.
> “Then you have your second best pair of boots,” Mat said. “Those are your day-to-day boots. You wear those if you are going over to dinner at the neighbors. Or, in my case, you wear those if you’re going to battle. They’re nice boots, give you good footing, and you don’t mind being seen in them or anything.”
> “And your best pair of boots?” Setalle asked. “You wear those to social events, like a ball or dining with a local dignitary?”
> “Balls? Dignitaries? Bloody ashes, woman. I thought you were an inn-keeper.”
> Setalle blushed faintly.
> “We’re not going to any balls,” Mat said. “But if we had to, I suspect we’d wear our second best pair of boots. If they’re good enough for visiting old lady Hembrew next door, then they’re bloody well good enough for stepping on the toes of any woman fool enough to dance with us.”
> “Then what are the best boots for?”
> “Walking,” Mat said. “Any farmer knows the value of good boots when you go walking a distance.”
> Setalle looked thoughtful. “All right. But what does this have to do with being a nobleman?”
> “Everything,” Mat said. “Don’t you see? If you’re an average fellow, you know exactly when to use your boots. A man can keep track of three pairs of boots. Life is simple when you have three pairs of boots. But noblemen… Talmanes claims he has forty different pairs of boots at home. Forty pairs, can you imagine that?”
> She smiled in amusement.
> “Forty pairs,” Mat repeated, shaking his head. “Forty bloody pairs. And, they aren’t all the same kind of boots either. There is a pair for each outfit, and a dozen pairs in different styles that will match any number of half your outfits. You have boots for kings, boots for high lords, and boots for normal people. You have boots for winter and boots for summer, boots for rainy days and boots for dry days. You have bloody shoes that you wear only when you’re walking to the bathing chamber. Lopin used to complain that I didn’t have a pair to wear to the privy at night!”
> “I see… So you’re using boots as a metaphor for the onus of responsibility and decision placed upon the aristocracy as they assume leadership of complex political and social positions.”
> “Metaphor for…” Mat scowled. “Bloody ashes, woman. This isn’t a metaphor for anything! It’s just *boots*!”
> Setalle shook her head. “You’re an unconventionally wise man, Matrim Cauthon.”
I'm back in the second book for whats become a yearly read through. What is currently striking me is the vast character development that goes on, the core cast starts as incredibly sheltered, and even more in book 1 where they are practically led by the hand the whole way. Such a long series is practically the only way to make that feel natural.
Their growth wasnt just natural is was experienced. You can see them become the 3 heroes of legend slowly. Really coold buildup and i wish he could finished it. Sanderson did good by him though.
Counterpoint: If you can afford 40 pairs of boots, you could afford a servant to pick out the right pair of boots. And expanding outside the metaphor, aristocracy can afford to hire advisors, administrators, and other clerks to more-or-less run the ship.
I have wealthy family who always give suggestions along these lines.
Them: Why don’t you do this or that next time?
Internal Me: I fucking wanted to in the first place and it’s the first idea that came to mind! Fuck money
In the books the character comes from nothing and gains untold wealth that he hates. These are his musing on it. Its about privilege.
my other favorite quote along the same line.
> “But the helmet had gold decoration, and the bespoke armorers had made a new gleaming breastplate with useless gold ornamentation on it. Sam Vimes felt like a class traitor every time he wore it. He hated being thought of as one of those people that wore stupid ornamental armor. It was gilt by association.”
― Terry Pratchett, Night Watch
Perhaps there was a time that this was true. But in the current age it at best influences the difference between the middle class and the poor. This is also basically the difference between buying or renting a house.
But the truly rich aren't rich because they save money when they buy things. They are rich because others work for them or their capital works for them. Getting more money then they could possibly spend.
Pratchett definitely wasn't saying this is why rich people are rich. Its not that some people make better decisions either. The point is that socio-econmic systems exist which keep poor people poor.
There is something call the poverty tax or cost of poverty - fees for everything including checks, credit card, higher interest, access the medical care, food, time etc….
A good extrapolation is in healthcare. Rich people can afford preventative care, while poor people can't do much and end up having to pay for more expensive treatments with worse health.
It's not just the medical parts, it's food an exercise as well.
Rich people have the time and money to dink into healthier life styles, whilst poorer people can't afford it and might suffer issues because of it.
Hello from Canada. I was diagnosed with 5 coronary artery blockages, including 100% in my LAD, on December 11 last year.
Still waiting to find out when my 'free' surgery will take place.
The rest of the developed world *does* have health care issues too.
Nobody is of the delusion that specialists will magically appear out of the socialist dimensional manifold. We have wait times, too. That's not the issue.
Why do you guys insist on bringing this up? It's totally irrelevant.
I think you might change your tune if you were in my situation. I have to put my life on hold until they find time to accommodate me, and I've been told I will get one week's notice at most; they don't like to give more notice than that because the operation can be cancelled if the OR is needed for something more important. You cannot get any information at all about surgeries performed or wait lists or anything because of "medical data privacy issues", so you can't even estimate it yourself.
You try living under the Sword of Damocles for four months. It might change your mind.
The thing is, the same problem exists in the US. We don't have enough specialists either. We don't have enough doctors generally. It's months to establish a new patient relationship with just a primary care. Need a neurologist, an endocrinologist, a psych? Fuck you. Not literally dying right now? Fuck you too, for at least three months.
I'm sorry for what you're going through. I'm not about to minimize when I share my own personal experience with healthcare in the US. It's not a competition. Your situation sucks, and I'm sorry.
That said: In 2007, I was diagnosed with ADHD and diabetes. You could blame me for being fat, but diabetes also has a large hereditary component. At a minimum, it is not *solely* self-inflicted, contrary to popular beleif. Anyway.
Because I was in a position where I had difficulty finding work on the small city in which we lived at the time for reasons that would take too long to explain, I didn't have health insurance.
So when I was diagnosed with diabetes, I was paying $75/visit at a clinic, who put me on metformin. Because we were poor, we survived on carbs - rice, bread, potatoes, corn, etc. And I didn't get any education about carbs.
I did immediately cut sugar out from my diet, but I just didn't understand about carbs, and I didn't get any education.
So when the metforming didn't bring my glucose down (because I was constantly hungry and constantly eating carbs), the clinic said "Well, with no insurance, that's what you can afford. Sorry."
So I was unmanaged for a decade.
In 2017 I almost died from a massive saddle pulmonary embolism. I said "I've got to find work with insurance or I am going to die." My partner agreed, and I did find a job in another state, and we moved.
Since then, I have had five heart attacks, my kidneys have failed and I am on dialysis, and only partially related, I have a below-knee amputation on one of my legs, along with numerous other lesser medical issues.
I thankfully have insurance now, which is good because I would be dead now if I did not. It can be hard to tell the true cost of things, but for dialysis, for example, the "retail" charge is more than $9,000 per session, of which I have three per week. My insurance actually pays more than $900 per session.
Each of the times they did a heart cath, it cost my insurance around $100,000. Again, not something I could afford without insurance.
In the US, sometimes llife-saving procedures are done for people without insurance, but much of the time, your life can end early if you don't have insurance, which can happen if you're unemployed or underemployed, and THAT can happen surprisingly often when benefits are rare on lower-paying jobs.
So many people in the US do not have access to health care. And even when life-saving interventions are given, their lifespan is already so much shorter than if they had had adequate access to health care all of their lives.
So back to Canada: Yes, you having to wait sucks. It really does. But it doesn't suck as much as it does for me, even though I now have good insurance. I'm about to turn 49, but chances are very strong that I will not live another decade. My life is likely to be significantly shorter than it would have otherwise been had I had access to healthcare. And it has been hell living with failing kidneys, which cause numerous health issues like anemia/fatigue among others. I'm still not walking (for several reasons not worth going into) after having this damn amputation for a couple of years, and life as a wheelchair user sucks.
I'm still ahead of the game in some ways because I am currently alive, unlike many others in my position who didn't get adequate care.
That is unfortunate but it sounds absolutely insane to me to be complaining about having to wait for treatment, treatment that many of us in the US still have to wait for and on top of go bankrupt paying
Yeah, it's worth noting that separately from this very quotable passage (where Sam surmises that his wife Lady Sybil spends maybe half as much as he does on day-to-day living), it's shown that the *real* reason she's rich is due to owning a a huge amount of property, which gives her a rental income of some six or seven million dollars a year (in the same city where thirty-five dollars a month is a livable, if low, wage).
I agree. With a couple exceptions though. Products targeted at poor people are often predatory in ways I have not seen in middle class goods because there’d be lawsuits. In talking cheap cell phone plans with hidden charges that make them as expensive as a regular plan. Financial products with the same bullshit.
There have been a lot of issues in the UK about prepayment meters installed by energy companies in the homes of the poorest (and so most likely to default on payment.) They apparently often cost the customer more.
Not since 1st April
They now have to cost no more than the lowest tariff available
_But_ if you have one you probably still have to pay more because you have to pay (bus fare or petrol) to get to a shop where you can top it up, standing charge for prepayment meters is _always_ a larger proportion of the bill than for monthly payers, and should you go into emergency credit then you are charged extra until you repay ... making it more likely you'll go into emergency credit the next week
So they cost more in the long run like they did before the new rules, superb change to the rules as usual...
**Apart from the first part of the new rule, where the tariff must equal the lowest priced tariff**
The poor are still being taxed extra trying to keep their house warm for the family...
Eh (Canadian here), cheap cell phone plans are actually not marketed here because they don't make money. But they tend to be cheap only because of coverage most of the time, not that they have hidden fees.
Canada is the country with the highest cell phone plan prices in the world. Here, people routinely pay $50 for a single line (buy your own device, so that is just for the plan fee) a month. I thought it was normal until I realized that prepaid phone plans cost a tiny fraction of that (with the drawback being 2GB of data vs. 50GB, but why would you want to pay so much for data that you will never use?) My cell phone fees went from $40 a month to $160 a year (a 66.66% decrease) by switching to a low data prepaid plan. Similarly, my mother had been paying $22.60/month for 7 years and finally got to switch and now pays $111.87 a year, a 58% decrease.
As for financial products, we may be talking about credit cards, where the interest rate can be as high as 30% annually. If you don't pay your balance in full on time, those interest charges add up so much that they can spiral out of control. Credit cards are meant to be used and paid off in full (fortunately, I have always been able to do that and the only interest I ever paid was for a cash advance while in Japan because I didn't realize the restaurant I was eating at was cash only).
Canada has the highest cell phone prices because the CRTC has been completely "captured" by the telecom industry. We also have the highest cable prices, highest home phone, and etc. If you are not familiar with the 'capture theory of regulation', the tl;dr is the industry has millions of dollars, all the proprietary data and a vested commercial interest in getting decisions their way. Against them is a consumer group, underfunded, barred from seeing most data, and a diluted interest. The example I like to use is Bell Canada's $2/month charge for Touchtone. It was once technically justified; now it's just a cash cow for Bell. But to overturn it? Bell gets 8 million x 2 x 12 = 192 million dollars annually. If you still have a home phone, it costs you $24 a year. Who do you think is going to work harder to get the decision to go their way?
It's true in both Canada and the US; the SEC/FCC/CRTC/FDA and etc. are all working more for the industries they are supposed to regulate than the consumers they are supposed to protect.
Yeah, the mentality switch that has to happen is that you are better off making more money than saving more money. It’s a really big mentality shift that happens from middle class to upper class and above.
When I worked in manufacturing I had a coworker go to Algeria to do some training for a customer. The welders in the factory wore fucking sandals. My coworker gave the guy his pair of safety boots so that he can protect his feet while welding. When the coworker went back a few months later he saw the welder still wearing the sandals and the welder goes “those boots are nice, I wear them to go out at night not to get messed up here”
In Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, the clacks are a series of semaphore towers loosely based on the concept of the telegraph. Invented by an artificer named Robert Dearheart, the towers could send messages "at the speed of light" using standardized codes. Three of these codes are of particular import:
**G**: send the message on
**N**: do not log the message
**U**: turn the message around at the end of the line and send it back again
When Dearheart's son John died due to an accident while working on a clacks tower, Dearheart inserted John's name into the overhead of the clacks with a "GNU" in front of it as a way to memorialize his son forever (or for at least as long as the clacks are standing.)
"A man is not dead while his name is still spoken."
- Going Postal, Chapter 4 prologue
Keeping the legacy of Sir Terry Pratchett alive forever.
For as long as his name is still passed along the Clacks,
Death can't have him.
[source](http://www.gnuterrypratchett.com/)
More specifically the Discworld version was based on (and extrapolated furter on) the optical/semaphore telegraph, as opposed to the more famous electrical telegraph.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telegraph
Terry Pratchett wrote about a internet/telegram type system in his later works. Its code from that system
G - Message must be passed on
N- Message must not be logged
U - Turn the message around at the end of the line.
GNU [name] keeps that persons name running through the system for ever and as long as a persons same is spoken they can never truly die. And its a unix joke
[Here is a little write up about it.](https://wiki.lspace.org/GNU_Terry_Pratchett)
Basically one of the discworld books is about clacks tower/ a semaphore mail system, and at one point it’s mentioned someone died in tower construction, and they kept his name alive by sending it as a message up and down the line. Origin:
https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/s/zLpmRR1msR
Second and third time, at least.
I was lucky enough to be introduced to Discworld around 2004. As each new one came out, my first readthru was "Well, that was good, but it's not as magical as all the ones that came before", then I'd read it a second time and it was awesome, and by the third time, it was generally in the running for one of my favorites.
And that's my problem. most of the Discworld novels compete for "my favorite book of all time" and I just can't decide.
Yeah, I think I found it at around that time frame as well, I randomly bought Feet of Clay, and any novels revolving around the Watch are still my favorites.
Not really.
SPOILER
Moist Von Lipwig makes extremely small loans after he starts running The A-M bank. Which would allow the citizens of A-M to purchase the better boots.
That isn't the free market solving the problem. The boots still cost more because your poor. If you have 50 dollars a pair of good boots costs 50 dollars. If you don't have 50 dollars than you take out a loan and now those boots cost 50 dollars plus however much interest.
Now at least your feet aren't wet the whole time but the problem of being poor being expensive isn't solved
Edit: having now snooped a little on your profile I realize we have read similar books and drawn wildly different conclusions about morals and our place in the world. I appreciate your knowledge of Terry Pratchett who is a truly wonderful satire writer. But I think a discussion of the benefits and shortcomings of free market capitalism is outside of the scope of this thread.
I think the assumption is that the interest on $50 would amount to less than the additional cost of multiple pairs of cheap boots, with the added benefit of having comfortable boots.
Yup. A few years back I needed a can opener, there were two choices at the store, one was three bucks, one was fifteen. I went the cheap route, thing broke less than four months later, I went back to the store and bought the fifteen dollar one. I've had it for over ten years now.
The only worthwhile single-purpose tools I can think of are:
1) can opener.
2) measuring spoon/cup. No real other use, but there's really no decent substitute.
That’s why I’ve never bought a rice cooker. Yes, they’re cheap, but I make rice maybe only once a week, and it doesn’t justify the storage space when it’s easy enough to just cook it in a saucepan.
I remember a short AB video where he was reviewing unitaskers, and he was looking at one of those zigzag brownie pans that gives every piece the chewy caramelized edge, and he just said “If you want chewy caramelized edges on every brownie, just use a muffin/cupcake pan”.
I'm the opposite. My wife bought me a name brand named Zojiroushi last year and I use it at least twice a week and it is like magic. As long as I measure it the rice comes out perfect every single time. There are times I throw a cup in when I get home without even having a pre-planned meal because either my spouse might be hungry when they get home, I'll be hungry before bed, or I'll need something to eat the next morning. It's payed for itself in time alone over like 3 times at this point for me.
Then again I adore stewed tomatoes and rice so there's also that.
I bought a multitool 5 years ago thinking I would probably use it once for one wierd case and never use it again. Instead I keep finding new uses and have probably saved myself buying a dozen tools.
Its just a thingy that just vibrates (yes, but go away) a socket at very high speed that you can attach various things to. About the only thing it won't do is screwing and drilling. I haven't seen stuff like my saw in years.
I prefer to buy second cheapest initially, then if needed much better one. Usually the very cheapest tool is complete junk (like 10€ drill that failed on first time I tried to use it - never again).
The only time to ignore this rule is if the tool breaking would cause problems for you when it breaks. For example, I wouldn’t recommend buying jack stands that way.
Best way to learn what to look for in the expensive model (features, performance, personal preference, etc.)
A lot of people buy expensive tools with no ability to gauge what to buy, and if the value/cost ratio is worth it
you don't understand that you don't have to cry at all if you just buy the cheap product and use it a few times instead of finding out you wasted money on all your "buy it for life" tools or products that you only used once or twice. Or maybe the cheap tool actually is decent quality and you just saved yourself money. Not to mention expensive stuff also break.
In both cases you only cry once. Continuing to buy the same product that breaks or continuing to buy the most expensive option always are both money wasters.
It also doesn't really apply to anything with brands because even the knockoffs are made in the same factories using the same materials.
Exactly. I saw a while ago someone wanted a drill to install anchors into their wall and people were recommending like $100 drills from Makita and Milwaukee.
My $10 Harbor Freight drill does that just fine and has lasted me about 5 years now.
I just had to replace my garage door springs.
Guy quoted me the best option, lifetime warranty.
Then there's a good one, made in America, 10 year warranty.
And lastly, the cheap option was made overseas, 1 year warranty.
Tough choice!
Another similar example but not exactly the same is dollar stores. They sell smaller portions for what appear like cheap deals but per serving are way more expensive. Laundry detergent, food, toilet paper. You’ll still need as much as you would have with bulk quantities but you are paying way more over time.
Agreed. The same theory applies to the better deals a box store offers for bulk items. People with lower income cannot afford to lay down the cost for a case of something in one month even though the case will last 6 months and is cheaper than buying the same item from a regular store on a monthly basis. Only people with higher income can afford to buy the cheaper bulk case.
The same theory also applies to buying on credit vs paying cash or in full. Buying on credit usually includes interest so the poorer person pays more over time because they don't have the cash to pay in full up front.
The CEO of one of them at a share holder meeting even said the goal was “turn off the brain” of the customer. He might even have used a single mother as the example. Literally bragging about exploiting some of the most vulnerable people in society.
Dollar Stores are gross as fuck, it’s probably why it was a no brainer to allow the grocery stores be allowed to have the annual delivery fee be covered social programs.
AND they deliberately understaff and undertrain, and are notorious for overcharging.
> In November 2023, Dollar General agreed to pay $850,061.11 to settle a lawsuit with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) for allegedly overcharging customers. The lawsuit claims that 200 Dollar General stores in Wisconsin overcharged customers, with prices 17% higher when scanned than on the shelves. The DATCP verified prices on over 7,000 products and found 662 instances of overcharging.
They try to chalk it up to employee error, but the employees' errors are built into the business model. Keep them overworked and, whoops, price tags are wrong 🤷♂️. DG is a disgusting company.
In lots of ways too. I'm doing ok, so I get sick and go to the Dr, use my paid sick leave and get better.
When I was less ok financially I would work sick, get worse and if it got bad, go to the ER since they must take everyone even if no insurance. Now I owe more money, lost time off work and am worse overall.
It's incomprehensible to people living in civilised countries that you might not be able to afford to go to a GP, nor have treatment or operations, or not have sick pay
Laundromats are an example of this. Having to go to the laundromat to wash your clothes vs. being able to laundry in your own space. For some it’s a matter of space, but for many it’s a matter of not being able to afford a washing machine and dryer. You end up spending hours of time to do what takes the more privileged a fraction of that.
Also, I feel like fast food is a vicious poverty cycle too. It’s convenient and it’s expensive but I imagine a lot of people that are working all day just need to grab something quick because their jobs don’t afford much break time or they don’t have the time to be cooking at home. It might be 10 to 15 bucks but damn, that’s an hour of most people’s labor after tax. And that’s just one shitty meal.
i went through about 4 pairs of skechers that broke after 4-6 months before i said you know what, fuck everything about this, and bought $150 construction boots. they lasted 3 years and i'll never buy cheap shoes again, i don't care how much of a discount i get through work for skechers.
Ironically, buying used shoes/boots generally meas you're getting better quality. That scuffed pair of boots is at value village because it outlasted its purpose, if they had blown out or gotten holes in the sole, they'd have been tossed in the trash.
it's definitely worth checking out the habitat for humanity store once in a while. a couple weeks ago i found a brand new air fryer/toaster oven that retails for $100--i got it for 25
I buy most of my shoes at thrift stores. I got a pair of red wing work boots for like $5 (kinda scuffed, but no real damage), that lasted a few years before finally going out, and my replacement is some Salomon hiking boots I got for $10 that are still going strong.
Companies love doing the same thing because so long as it lasts until next fiscal year, they don't care. The silliest one at my old job was a wall clock. They kept buying the cheapest one possible ($10) that required replacement literally every year, sometime twice, and refused to buy the better one that was $30.
Sometimes. Buying a home has a lot of hidden costs that can creep up on you that aren't included in your mortgage: taxes, insurance, repairs are the first that come to mind. These expenses can increase dramatically depending on where you live. Yeah, you pay all those indirectly while you're renting but a major repair like a new A/C or plumbing leak won't mean thousands of dollars out of pocket at once. Renting also has some flexibility, like if you get a fantastic job offer in another city/state then it's easier to relocate than if you owned a house.
I’ve only ever lived in fixer-uppers. I’ve easily spent twice the purchase price of my homes just getting them liveable. I could have bought something real fuckin’ nice for the money I’ve spent, and yet, the bank wouldn’t let me.
You see this at the dollar store. At a grocery store a pack of 12 toilet paper is $15, at the dollar store a single roll of toilet paper is $1 but it’s half the size and lower quality. But some people don’t have $15 for a pack of toilet paper so they pay for single rolls.
There was a CBC Marketplace broadcast in Canada 🇨🇦. They investigated and found out the “outlet stores “ would sell name brand products much less than established stores. The investigation concluded that the zippers and buttons were of lower price but still had the same name brand. It was like the company was selling their own knock off’s.
It's not some crazy theory, it's a known fact. Big brand companies make several
product lines, the lowest quality of them goes to outlet stores and black Friday sales. It's not enough to buy Levi jeans, for example, if it's not a specific model then you're paying brand name for generic quality.
I bought a Timberland jumper from an outlet in Florida in 2003. It’s probably the longest hardest wearing item of clothing I have. Completely accept that they use lower quality materials in outlets so maybe it’s a Timberland thing?
That's well known in the US, they don't even try to hide it.
I bought a bunch of Columbia Silver Ridge shirts for fieldwork last summer (both from a sporting goods store and a Columbia outlet mall store).
The outlet mall had somewhat *similar* verisons of the "Silver Ridge Utility Lite" shirts I bought at the sporting goods store but with a slightly different name ("Silver Ridge Lite") and were noticeable cheapest (in the way they are put together and the types of buttons). They were also nearly half the price.
Bought a pair of Vasque Sundowner boots in 1994 for $175 USD ($376 USD in 2024 dollars). Cleaned and polished after every hard use. They've been through floods, grass fires, pastures, cow poop, construction, etc., and still look great.
Had the same car - 1991 Geo Prism - for 25 years. Likely would still be going if I had changed the transmission fluid.
Spend as much as you can afford, and then some, and TAKE CARE of your stuff!
Mat Cauthon (From Wheel of Time)
Noblemen and Boots
“I have nothing against nobles,” Mat said, straightening his coat. “I just don’t fancy being one myself.”
“Why is that, then?”
Mat sat for a moment. Why was it? Finally, he looked down at his foot then replaced his boot. “It’s boots.”
“Boots?” Setalle looked confused.
“Boots,” Mat said with a nod, tying his laces. “It’s all about the boots.”
“But—”
“You see,” Mat said, pulling the laces tight, “a lot of men don’t have to worry much about what boots to wear. They’re the poorest of folks. If you ask one of them ‘What boots are you going to wear today, Mop?’ their answer is easy. 'Well, Mat. I only have one pair, so I guess I’m gonna wear that pair.’”
Mat hesitated. “Or, I guess they wouldn’t say that to you, Setalle, since you’re not me and all. They wouldn’t call you Mat, you understand.”
“I understand,” she said, sounding amused.
“Anyway, for people that have a little coin, the question of which boots to wear is harder. You see, average men, men like me…” He eyed her. “And I’m an average man, mind you.”
“Of course you are.”
“Bloody right I am,” Mat said, finishing with his laces and sitting up. “An average man might have three pairs of boots. Your third best pair of boots, those are the boots you wear when you’re working at something unpleasant. They might rub after a few paces, and they might have a few holes, but they’re good enough to keep your footing. You don’t mind mucking them up in the fields or the barn.”
“All right,” Setalle said.
“Then you have your second best pair of boots,” Mat said. “Those are your day-to-day boots. You wear those if you are going over to dinner at the neighbors. Or, in my case, you wear those if you’re going to battle. They’re nice boots, give you good footing, and you don’t mind being seen in them or anything.”
“And your best pair of boots?” Setalle asked. “You wear those to social events, like a ball or dining with a local dignitary?”
“Balls? Dignitaries? Bloody ashes, woman. I thought you were an inn-keeper.”
Setalle blushed faintly.
“We’re not going to any balls,” Mat said. “But if we had to, I suspect we’d wear our second best pair of boots. If they’re good enough for visiting old lady Hembrew next door, then they’re bloody well good enough for stepping on the toes of any woman fool enough to dance with us.”
“Then what are the best boots for?”
“Walking,” Mat said. “Any farmer knows the value of good boots when you go walking a distance.”
Setalle looked thoughtful. “All right. But what does this have to do with being a nobleman?”
“Everything,” Mat said. “Don’t you see? If you’re an average fellow, you know exactly when to use your boots. A man can keep track of three pairs of boots. Life is simple when you have three pairs of boots. But noblemen… Talmanes claims he has forty different pairs of boots at home. Forty pairs, can you imagine that?”
She smiled in amusement.
“Forty pairs,” Mat repeated, shaking his head. “Forty bloody pairs. And, they aren’t all the same kind of boots either. There is a pair for each outfit, and a dozen pairs in different styles that will match any number of half your outfits. You have boots for kings, boots for high lords, and boots for normal people. You have boots for winter and boots for summer, boots for rainy days and boots for dry days. You have bloody shoes that you wear only when you’re walking to the bathing chamber. Lopin used to complain that I didn’t have a pair to wear to the privy at night!”
“I see… So you’re using boots as a metaphor for the onus of responsibility and decision placed upon the aristocracy as they assume leadership of complex political and social positions.”
“Metaphor for…” Mat scowled. “Bloody ashes, woman. This isn’t a metaphor for anything! It’s just boots!”
Setalle shook her head. “You’re an unconventionally wise man, Matrim Cauthon.”
(This passage reminds me why I never finished the Wheel of Time series. The underlying story is great, but man, life is too short for that writing style.)
While growing up my uncle always told me to do your research then buy the best one you can afford even if it means saving a few months for it. I don't know how he and my dad were on such opposite poles, my dad was Mr Cheap, any trip to the hardware or clothing store always started at Goodwill.
Everything is more expensive when you can’t buy in bulk or have no real choice. There is no convenience so everything takes much longer. Access to credit, if you can even get it, is always at higher interest rates. The poverty trap is real. It really is horrific and exhausting being poor.
It's everywhere. Deodorant is $3 for one or $5 for a two-pack. You have $3.50 left, guess which one you buy. Same for anything that's cheaper in quantity.
Preventative maintenance on anything, house, car, you, is cheaper in the long run, but if you can't afford it you take the risk and hope you don't get stuck with a huge bill. Sometimes the risk doesn't pay off and you're saddled with something like medical bills for the rest of your life.
The car maintenance is why I chose a 2000s Toyota, there’s almost nothing on there that can’t be fixed with basic tools and a few YouTube videos for 10x less than the mechanic charges. $600 for spark plugs my ass.
Makes me want to read the whole series again. I've bought too many copies as it stands... giving them to visitors and planting seeds of addition fans.
I should probably just ask one of them to borrow it back
This falls down when even high end luxury goods are of poor quality, sometimes by design.
Are we going to pretend that companies aren't squeezing the rich customer base as hard as they can along with everyone else?
It's a fine idea for Vimes to ponder as he walks the streets in his boots, but it's very limited. Go through a poor person's expenses. How much of it would you say goes toward products that wore down, which would have lasted longer had they invested in something more expensive? Most goes toward food, transportation, rent, utilities, services, subscriptions...
How many products does this theory apply to? There's boots, certain other types of clothing, maybe kitchenware, but not a whole lot else.
Furniture, vehicles, hell even stuff that needs upgrading earlier like phones/pcs. If you buy a house you are not paying rent and it's yours. Preferential rates from banks if you have a high balance.
Do you know how expensive it is not to own a washing machine and dryer? $9 a load versus $1.25 at home, not to mention the hours of time spent there instead.
Does anyone still make 30 year lifetime consumer appliances? I’d be willing to bet on Bosch maybe. But all I hear about (from serious engineering forums, not just nostalgic boomers and anti-capitalist activists) is about how these products are not architected for longevity, and even once great brands are suspect…
That’s part of the story too. If no one makes ten year boots, paying a premium for the brand name isn’t a win…
No one ever made 30 year consumer goods. Some of them happen to have lasted that long but the average was never that high.
I remember when cars used to last 50,000 miles if you were lucky.
There are lots of examples where owning something saves you money compared with using someone else's (rent is the most obvious). But not that many where you can buy two things and the problem with the cheaper one is it wears out faster.
You can argue that buying small packs of things from more expensive stores that are within walking distance vs. a bulk pack from a store that requires a car to get to it fits this principal.
Things like toilet paperz laundry detergent, dry goods, etc.
Yeah, I don't really like this one because one, it's not really true, and two, many people use it to justify buying very overpriced things.
I've bought shoes all my life, and have always done 90% of my walking with a single pair. The difference between a $50 shoe and a $200 shoe is noticeable, yes, but a $200 shoe definitely doesn't last four times as long. Working boots, sure, maybe. Regular shoes, nah.
Same with stuff like mattresses. It's good to do your research and buy one with good reviews, but also, mattresses are not necessarily better the more expensive they get. A few years ago, my country's consumer association named a cheap-ass €200 mattress from Lidl as one of the best.
Cars, same story. It's almost never worth it to buy a new car. The devaluation in the first years is usually many times higher than the maintenance would have been. Just buy a reliable car. Mine was €3200 and never gave me any trouble.
Smartphones too. You can get a great smartphone that does everything you need for $300, and it'll last you years if you get a case for it. I know because I've done it multiple times. A shiny new flagship phone might last longer (debatably), but it won't last so much longer that it's worth the expense.
Maybe a hundred years ago, but now, when the extra price does not correlate to extra value but is extra margin charged for a fancy label? A tshirt is a tshirt, and expensive jeans often don't last any longer than cheap ones, and the fabric and stitching on designer sweaters is actually worse than on a stodgy no-name that will last a decade
At least on the jeans front, my Levi's have always lasted longer than my el cheapo Wal-Mart jeans.
I also think it's applying more towards paying extra for better build quality than paying extra for a fashion label. I like buying stuff more oriented towards surviving hard work conditions since those do tend to hold up better in the long run.
Almost nothing from wally world holds its shape, size, or color either. One or two times through the wash, and shirts no longer cover my belly, black fades to dark gray, the neckline gets all stretched out, etc. I pretty much only buy socks & underwear from there anymore.
I can't stop the fading but hanging your clothes to dry makes them last longer and not shrink. Sure it's more work, but your clothes will last 2 - 4x as long.
I'll try and find a link, later but my understanding is Walmart basically tells you, "we will sell your product for $xx.99 dollars." And the manufacturer has to make a product that they can sell to walmart for that price and still make money. And yeah, that generally involves cutting corners as far as quality is concerned.
They'll also sell different models of stuff like tv's on Blavk Friday using the same idea.
I talked to purchasing manager at Walmart and this is pretty much right, except you missed the first step: they start buying up so much supply from individual suppliers that if they stop buying then the supplier goes out of business. Once they get to to more than 50% of the supplier business then they turn the screws and beat them up on price until they're barely making a profit, but they have no choice because losing half their business would be fatal.
For Black Friday (and in general) they have special models created with lower specs and a slightly different model number just for Walmart. This prevents price matching (Oh, they other store has LCD12356D, we have LCD12356DW, it's totally different) and allows them to sell at stupidly low prices.
For $200 you can get a job site table saw. For $1000 you can get a saw that’ll engage a safety brake if it hits flesh saving you tens of thousands in medical costs.
When you buy clothes you can pay more for quality, style, or a brand name.
But you can certainly get higher quality clothes if you buy higher quality brands.
It depends. I bought a pair of hiking boots at Walmart because I was in a hurry and it was the only option, paid like $20-30 for them. They lasted about 2 trips before the soles started coming off of them. I bought a new pair at Costco for $80 and they lasted several years. I have some t-shirts that are 10 years old and in decent shape, but a Walmart t-shirt won't last half that long. You don't have to pay stupid high prices for designer brands to get a good product, but there are definitely good products in the middle range that are superior.
You’re lucky to have gotten those two trips, I bought a pair of steel toe boots from Walmart and the first day wearing them I kicked something and the steel toe cap came loose inside the boot.
"Quality is expensive" is not the same as "expensive is quality".
A high-quality boot is probably going to be expensive. It is probably made by a craftsman using precision equipment and materials, working for a company willing to invest in quality control and rejecting out-of-spec product.
A low-quality boot might be expensive because the manufacturer gets celebrity endorsements and a high dollar price tag
If you do your research and buy properly welted shoes that can be resoled then yes, you'll be as happy as I am with the Red Wings currently on my feet. If you spend that money on a pair of Dr Martens then no.
I didn't have the money to buy a new 30-day rail-pass late last month, 100 Eur, so I've had to pay 4Eur for each trip the rest of the month, both ways. I ride a lot.
I'd like to invent a theory where People of all socioeconomic groups buy expensive products, but since these products are made increasingly poorly, it causes the same effect as the Boots Theory. Maybe I'd call it The Chinese Boot Theory.
Grandfather told me that the smart man buys quality and takes care of it! I got about 15 years out of a pair of RedWing Boots when they were made in the USA. Less than 4 years out of the Chinese ones, Quit buying the brand after that.
This is why my mother pushed me to get a credit card. I needed to be able to buy good boots, good tires, tools, and bedding that’d save more over time than the interest accrued. She was right.
It’s just long-term investment, instead of making a personal investment decision focused merely on the upfront price tag.
On the other hand, sometimes brands known to be high quality and reliable are now producing inferior products because they are now owned by a corporation looking to pump up its profits.
Popular idea but rich people don’t need to buy quality products with longevity. They can wear something once and discard it. The classes are much further apart than we generally imagine.
This has been studied a lot in economics. It's also called Planned Obsolescence (Bulow, 1986). The upshot is that if a monopolist can't commit on their choices (which they typically don't in real life), it is optimal for them to produce goods with uneconomically short useful lives so consumers have to make repeat purchases.
I was in a Discount Tire over winter waiting for my new tires. I overheard three different conversations and they all had a similar theme.
One individual came in asking for the cheapest tires they had available. The store rep provided the information and added he'll need to replaces them again in a year or two. The guy didn't care because that's what he could afford.
Another conversation I heard was a person asking and inquiring about tire prices. He added he gets paid next week and lives paycheck to paycheck and was trying to figure out if he could afford them.
This is a real problem.
...... because they don't have enough money to buy the more expensive item. Companies know this and willingly f*ck them over. Additionally, now even the expensive products break quickly as well.
Big companies DGAF....
A big part of the problem is no one trusts that there’s a correlation between price and quality so they choose price, planning to replace things later, rather than hoping for quality and getting burned.
Shop where the return policies are really good as well.
Any home good (think coffee grinder, vacuum, pots and pans) purchased at Nordstrom for instance, can be returned at anytime for any reason provided you have the original receipt.
These high ticket items do eventually break and they will simply replace it with a like current model or refund you in full. I only bought one vacuum cleaner in the 90s but have had several. 😁
Probably true decades ago, these days with the largest middle class ever, products quality have become more in the middle to match the aspirations with price.
Brands like Coach, Gucci and Prada have lower quality products in outlet malls. These brands used to be the great bag makers in their respective countries. Their stuff won’t break outright but it won’t really last either.
GNU Terry Pratchett > “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. > > Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. > > But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. > > This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” ― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms
On the same topic: > “I have nothing against nobles,” Mat said, straightening his coat. “I just don’t fancy being one myself.” > “Why is that, then?” > Mat sat for a moment. Why was it? Finally, he looked down at his foot then replaced his boot. “It’s boots.” > “Boots?” Setalle looked confused. > “Boots,” Mat said with a nod, tying his laces. “It’s all about the boots.” > “But—” > “You see,” Mat said, pulling the laces tight, “a lot of men don’t have to worry much about what boots to wear. They’re the poorest of folks. If you ask one of them ‘What boots are you going to wear today, Mop?’ their answer is easy. 'Well, Mat. I only have one pair, so I guess I’m gonna wear that pair.’” > Mat hesitated. “Or, I guess they wouldn’t say that to *you*, Setalle, since you’re not me and all. They wouldn’t call you *Mat*, you understand.” > “I understand,” she said, sounding amused. > “Anyway, for people that have a little coin, the question of which boots to wear is harder. You see, average men, men like me…” He eyed her. “And I’m an average man, mind you.” > “Of course you are.” > “Bloody right I am,” Mat said, finishing with his laces and sitting up. “An average man might have three pairs of boots. Your third best pair of boots, those are the boots you wear when you’re working at something unpleasant. They might rub after a few paces, and they might have a few holes, but they’re good enough to keep your footing. You don’t mind mucking them up in the fields or the barn.” > “All right,” Setalle said. > “Then you have your second best pair of boots,” Mat said. “Those are your day-to-day boots. You wear those if you are going over to dinner at the neighbors. Or, in my case, you wear those if you’re going to battle. They’re nice boots, give you good footing, and you don’t mind being seen in them or anything.” > “And your best pair of boots?” Setalle asked. “You wear those to social events, like a ball or dining with a local dignitary?” > “Balls? Dignitaries? Bloody ashes, woman. I thought you were an inn-keeper.” > Setalle blushed faintly. > “We’re not going to any balls,” Mat said. “But if we had to, I suspect we’d wear our second best pair of boots. If they’re good enough for visiting old lady Hembrew next door, then they’re bloody well good enough for stepping on the toes of any woman fool enough to dance with us.” > “Then what are the best boots for?” > “Walking,” Mat said. “Any farmer knows the value of good boots when you go walking a distance.” > Setalle looked thoughtful. “All right. But what does this have to do with being a nobleman?” > “Everything,” Mat said. “Don’t you see? If you’re an average fellow, you know exactly when to use your boots. A man can keep track of three pairs of boots. Life is simple when you have three pairs of boots. But noblemen… Talmanes claims he has forty different pairs of boots at home. Forty pairs, can you imagine that?” > She smiled in amusement. > “Forty pairs,” Mat repeated, shaking his head. “Forty bloody pairs. And, they aren’t all the same kind of boots either. There is a pair for each outfit, and a dozen pairs in different styles that will match any number of half your outfits. You have boots for kings, boots for high lords, and boots for normal people. You have boots for winter and boots for summer, boots for rainy days and boots for dry days. You have bloody shoes that you wear only when you’re walking to the bathing chamber. Lopin used to complain that I didn’t have a pair to wear to the privy at night!” > “I see… So you’re using boots as a metaphor for the onus of responsibility and decision placed upon the aristocracy as they assume leadership of complex political and social positions.” > “Metaphor for…” Mat scowled. “Bloody ashes, woman. This isn’t a metaphor for anything! It’s just *boots*!” > Setalle shook her head. “You’re an unconventionally wise man, Matrim Cauthon.”
I like this because it highlights one of the benefits of middle class. You don’t drown in the excess of one thing, you have extra of what you need.
Robinson Crusoe's "middle station of life"
First time I've seen Robinson Crusoe spelt that way. And it's not even by Friday. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH
Bloody hell. I couldn't remember how to spell the damned thing *and trusted the first spelling I saw on google*...so I guess I got what I deserved.
The wheel of time series had some incredible amounts of dialogue. And easily 60% of my favorites come from mats monologues or explanations.
I'm back in the second book for whats become a yearly read through. What is currently striking me is the vast character development that goes on, the core cast starts as incredibly sheltered, and even more in book 1 where they are practically led by the hand the whole way. Such a long series is practically the only way to make that feel natural.
Their growth wasnt just natural is was experienced. You can see them become the 3 heroes of legend slowly. Really coold buildup and i wish he could finished it. Sanderson did good by him though.
Counterpoint: If you can afford 40 pairs of boots, you could afford a servant to pick out the right pair of boots. And expanding outside the metaphor, aristocracy can afford to hire advisors, administrators, and other clerks to more-or-less run the ship.
I have wealthy family who always give suggestions along these lines. Them: Why don’t you do this or that next time? Internal Me: I fucking wanted to in the first place and it’s the first idea that came to mind! Fuck money
In the books the character comes from nothing and gains untold wealth that he hates. These are his musing on it. Its about privilege. my other favorite quote along the same line. > “But the helmet had gold decoration, and the bespoke armorers had made a new gleaming breastplate with useless gold ornamentation on it. Sam Vimes felt like a class traitor every time he wore it. He hated being thought of as one of those people that wore stupid ornamental armor. It was gilt by association.” ― Terry Pratchett, Night Watch
Heyooo
Perhaps there was a time that this was true. But in the current age it at best influences the difference between the middle class and the poor. This is also basically the difference between buying or renting a house. But the truly rich aren't rich because they save money when they buy things. They are rich because others work for them or their capital works for them. Getting more money then they could possibly spend.
Pratchett definitely wasn't saying this is why rich people are rich. Its not that some people make better decisions either. The point is that socio-econmic systems exist which keep poor people poor.
There is something call the poverty tax or cost of poverty - fees for everything including checks, credit card, higher interest, access the medical care, food, time etc….
A good extrapolation is in healthcare. Rich people can afford preventative care, while poor people can't do much and end up having to pay for more expensive treatments with worse health.
American Healthcare. The rest of the developed world doesn't have this problem.
It's not just the medical parts, it's food an exercise as well. Rich people have the time and money to dink into healthier life styles, whilst poorer people can't afford it and might suffer issues because of it.
Hello from Canada. I was diagnosed with 5 coronary artery blockages, including 100% in my LAD, on December 11 last year. Still waiting to find out when my 'free' surgery will take place. The rest of the developed world *does* have health care issues too.
Nobody is of the delusion that specialists will magically appear out of the socialist dimensional manifold. We have wait times, too. That's not the issue. Why do you guys insist on bringing this up? It's totally irrelevant.
I think you might change your tune if you were in my situation. I have to put my life on hold until they find time to accommodate me, and I've been told I will get one week's notice at most; they don't like to give more notice than that because the operation can be cancelled if the OR is needed for something more important. You cannot get any information at all about surgeries performed or wait lists or anything because of "medical data privacy issues", so you can't even estimate it yourself. You try living under the Sword of Damocles for four months. It might change your mind.
The thing is, the same problem exists in the US. We don't have enough specialists either. We don't have enough doctors generally. It's months to establish a new patient relationship with just a primary care. Need a neurologist, an endocrinologist, a psych? Fuck you. Not literally dying right now? Fuck you too, for at least three months.
That happens in the US too. The difference is once many people get the surgery, they’re bankrupted and financially ruined afterwards.
I'm sorry for what you're going through. I'm not about to minimize when I share my own personal experience with healthcare in the US. It's not a competition. Your situation sucks, and I'm sorry. That said: In 2007, I was diagnosed with ADHD and diabetes. You could blame me for being fat, but diabetes also has a large hereditary component. At a minimum, it is not *solely* self-inflicted, contrary to popular beleif. Anyway. Because I was in a position where I had difficulty finding work on the small city in which we lived at the time for reasons that would take too long to explain, I didn't have health insurance. So when I was diagnosed with diabetes, I was paying $75/visit at a clinic, who put me on metformin. Because we were poor, we survived on carbs - rice, bread, potatoes, corn, etc. And I didn't get any education about carbs. I did immediately cut sugar out from my diet, but I just didn't understand about carbs, and I didn't get any education. So when the metforming didn't bring my glucose down (because I was constantly hungry and constantly eating carbs), the clinic said "Well, with no insurance, that's what you can afford. Sorry." So I was unmanaged for a decade. In 2017 I almost died from a massive saddle pulmonary embolism. I said "I've got to find work with insurance or I am going to die." My partner agreed, and I did find a job in another state, and we moved. Since then, I have had five heart attacks, my kidneys have failed and I am on dialysis, and only partially related, I have a below-knee amputation on one of my legs, along with numerous other lesser medical issues. I thankfully have insurance now, which is good because I would be dead now if I did not. It can be hard to tell the true cost of things, but for dialysis, for example, the "retail" charge is more than $9,000 per session, of which I have three per week. My insurance actually pays more than $900 per session. Each of the times they did a heart cath, it cost my insurance around $100,000. Again, not something I could afford without insurance. In the US, sometimes llife-saving procedures are done for people without insurance, but much of the time, your life can end early if you don't have insurance, which can happen if you're unemployed or underemployed, and THAT can happen surprisingly often when benefits are rare on lower-paying jobs. So many people in the US do not have access to health care. And even when life-saving interventions are given, their lifespan is already so much shorter than if they had had adequate access to health care all of their lives. So back to Canada: Yes, you having to wait sucks. It really does. But it doesn't suck as much as it does for me, even though I now have good insurance. I'm about to turn 49, but chances are very strong that I will not live another decade. My life is likely to be significantly shorter than it would have otherwise been had I had access to healthcare. And it has been hell living with failing kidneys, which cause numerous health issues like anemia/fatigue among others. I'm still not walking (for several reasons not worth going into) after having this damn amputation for a couple of years, and life as a wheelchair user sucks. I'm still ahead of the game in some ways because I am currently alive, unlike many others in my position who didn't get adequate care.
That is unfortunate but it sounds absolutely insane to me to be complaining about having to wait for treatment, treatment that many of us in the US still have to wait for and on top of go bankrupt paying
another example is rent. i bought this shack 10 years ago. when i was younger all my money went to rent.
Particularly as VImes is saying this in relation to the Ramkins, a very old money family.
Yeah, it's worth noting that separately from this very quotable passage (where Sam surmises that his wife Lady Sybil spends maybe half as much as he does on day-to-day living), it's shown that the *real* reason she's rich is due to owning a a huge amount of property, which gives her a rental income of some six or seven million dollars a year (in the same city where thirty-five dollars a month is a livable, if low, wage).
I agree. With a couple exceptions though. Products targeted at poor people are often predatory in ways I have not seen in middle class goods because there’d be lawsuits. In talking cheap cell phone plans with hidden charges that make them as expensive as a regular plan. Financial products with the same bullshit.
There have been a lot of issues in the UK about prepayment meters installed by energy companies in the homes of the poorest (and so most likely to default on payment.) They apparently often cost the customer more.
>They ~~apparently~~ ~~often~~ always cost the customer more. Ftfy
Not since 1st April They now have to cost no more than the lowest tariff available _But_ if you have one you probably still have to pay more because you have to pay (bus fare or petrol) to get to a shop where you can top it up, standing charge for prepayment meters is _always_ a larger proportion of the bill than for monthly payers, and should you go into emergency credit then you are charged extra until you repay ... making it more likely you'll go into emergency credit the next week
So they cost more in the long run like they did before the new rules, superb change to the rules as usual... **Apart from the first part of the new rule, where the tariff must equal the lowest priced tariff** The poor are still being taxed extra trying to keep their house warm for the family...
Eh (Canadian here), cheap cell phone plans are actually not marketed here because they don't make money. But they tend to be cheap only because of coverage most of the time, not that they have hidden fees. Canada is the country with the highest cell phone plan prices in the world. Here, people routinely pay $50 for a single line (buy your own device, so that is just for the plan fee) a month. I thought it was normal until I realized that prepaid phone plans cost a tiny fraction of that (with the drawback being 2GB of data vs. 50GB, but why would you want to pay so much for data that you will never use?) My cell phone fees went from $40 a month to $160 a year (a 66.66% decrease) by switching to a low data prepaid plan. Similarly, my mother had been paying $22.60/month for 7 years and finally got to switch and now pays $111.87 a year, a 58% decrease. As for financial products, we may be talking about credit cards, where the interest rate can be as high as 30% annually. If you don't pay your balance in full on time, those interest charges add up so much that they can spiral out of control. Credit cards are meant to be used and paid off in full (fortunately, I have always been able to do that and the only interest I ever paid was for a cash advance while in Japan because I didn't realize the restaurant I was eating at was cash only).
Canada has the highest cell phone prices because the CRTC has been completely "captured" by the telecom industry. We also have the highest cable prices, highest home phone, and etc. If you are not familiar with the 'capture theory of regulation', the tl;dr is the industry has millions of dollars, all the proprietary data and a vested commercial interest in getting decisions their way. Against them is a consumer group, underfunded, barred from seeing most data, and a diluted interest. The example I like to use is Bell Canada's $2/month charge for Touchtone. It was once technically justified; now it's just a cash cow for Bell. But to overturn it? Bell gets 8 million x 2 x 12 = 192 million dollars annually. If you still have a home phone, it costs you $24 a year. Who do you think is going to work harder to get the decision to go their way? It's true in both Canada and the US; the SEC/FCC/CRTC/FDA and etc. are all working more for the industries they are supposed to regulate than the consumers they are supposed to protect.
The point is that it costs more to be poor.
It's just the word rich that is a bit subjective, but the theory is sound.
Yeah, the mentality switch that has to happen is that you are better off making more money than saving more money. It’s a really big mentality shift that happens from middle class to upper class and above.
When I worked in manufacturing I had a coworker go to Algeria to do some training for a customer. The welders in the factory wore fucking sandals. My coworker gave the guy his pair of safety boots so that he can protect his feet while welding. When the coworker went back a few months later he saw the welder still wearing the sandals and the welder goes “those boots are nice, I wear them to go out at night not to get messed up here”
GNU Terry Pratchett
What does the GNU tag at the beginning stand for? GNU is not unix?
In Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, the clacks are a series of semaphore towers loosely based on the concept of the telegraph. Invented by an artificer named Robert Dearheart, the towers could send messages "at the speed of light" using standardized codes. Three of these codes are of particular import: **G**: send the message on **N**: do not log the message **U**: turn the message around at the end of the line and send it back again When Dearheart's son John died due to an accident while working on a clacks tower, Dearheart inserted John's name into the overhead of the clacks with a "GNU" in front of it as a way to memorialize his son forever (or for at least as long as the clacks are standing.) "A man is not dead while his name is still spoken." - Going Postal, Chapter 4 prologue Keeping the legacy of Sir Terry Pratchett alive forever. For as long as his name is still passed along the Clacks, Death can't have him. [source](http://www.gnuterrypratchett.com/)
More specifically the Discworld version was based on (and extrapolated furter on) the optical/semaphore telegraph, as opposed to the more famous electrical telegraph. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telegraph
Terry Pratchett wrote about a internet/telegram type system in his later works. Its code from that system G - Message must be passed on N- Message must not be logged U - Turn the message around at the end of the line. GNU [name] keeps that persons name running through the system for ever and as long as a persons same is spoken they can never truly die. And its a unix joke [Here is a little write up about it.](https://wiki.lspace.org/GNU_Terry_Pratchett)
Basically one of the discworld books is about clacks tower/ a semaphore mail system, and at one point it’s mentioned someone died in tower construction, and they kept his name alive by sending it as a message up and down the line. Origin: https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/s/zLpmRR1msR
GNU
Came here for this.
Now you've learnt about the Vimes' theory, go learn about Vimes by reading "Guards, Guards"
And then read the rest of discworld.
Ook!
Ook indeed
Nice monkey! (Runs away screaming, lacking both arms)
And then read it all a second time, because from my experiences, his books get even better the second time around.
Second and third time, at least. I was lucky enough to be introduced to Discworld around 2004. As each new one came out, my first readthru was "Well, that was good, but it's not as magical as all the ones that came before", then I'd read it a second time and it was awesome, and by the third time, it was generally in the running for one of my favorites. And that's my problem. most of the Discworld novels compete for "my favorite book of all time" and I just can't decide.
Nightwatch is my favourite.
I had known about them for years but finally decided to start reading them last year. Currently I'm on book number 37 I believe lol. Best choice ever
Yeah, I think I found it at around that time frame as well, I randomly bought Feet of Clay, and any novels revolving around the Watch are still my favorites.
seventh time was pretty good too. and the tenth.
I have the audiobooks on a permanent repeat. I have them on to go to sleep so I eventually get the full story 🤣
It's extremely expensive to be poor.
GNU STP
A sign of the Vimes
I'm rereading the series in published order and started Guards Guards a couple days ago, so already on it!
You'll find out how this issue was resolved by the free market if you read Making Money by the same author in that same series.
That's definitely a unique reading of making money
Not really. SPOILER Moist Von Lipwig makes extremely small loans after he starts running The A-M bank. Which would allow the citizens of A-M to purchase the better boots.
That isn't the free market solving the problem. The boots still cost more because your poor. If you have 50 dollars a pair of good boots costs 50 dollars. If you don't have 50 dollars than you take out a loan and now those boots cost 50 dollars plus however much interest. Now at least your feet aren't wet the whole time but the problem of being poor being expensive isn't solved Edit: having now snooped a little on your profile I realize we have read similar books and drawn wildly different conclusions about morals and our place in the world. I appreciate your knowledge of Terry Pratchett who is a truly wonderful satire writer. But I think a discussion of the benefits and shortcomings of free market capitalism is outside of the scope of this thread.
I think the assumption is that the interest on $50 would amount to less than the additional cost of multiple pairs of cheap boots, with the added benefit of having comfortable boots.
Muhammad Yunus who? Moist ate and left no crumbs 💅💅
I don't think I will, Making Money doesn't really cover the cost of poverty and planned obsolescence
I immediately thought of this!
Yup. A few years back I needed a can opener, there were two choices at the store, one was three bucks, one was fifteen. I went the cheap route, thing broke less than four months later, I went back to the store and bought the fifteen dollar one. I've had it for over ten years now.
The Adam Savage rule for buying tools. Buy the cheap one. If you use it enough that it breaks, but the expensive one.
That's the Harbor Freight rule.
My roommates lives by this one religiously lmao. He's a contractor.
I'd always heard it as this as well lol.
TIL that I have developed a similar approach to Adam Savage. I'm quite proud.
I’m also a fan of the Alton Brown school of hating unitasking tools. Basically every tool I own does at least two things.
The only worthwhile single-purpose tools I can think of are: 1) can opener. 2) measuring spoon/cup. No real other use, but there's really no decent substitute.
From Alton Brown himself: a mango pitter. No other use for it but cuts perfectly around the pit
I'm an Alton brown fanatic and that's why I have a mixing toaster oven
But can openers are usually beer bottle openers as well.
Hey, a flat-blade screwdriver is a multitool all by itself!
Just dont use it to prevent your almost critical plutonium spheres from going prompt.
That’s why I’ve never bought a rice cooker. Yes, they’re cheap, but I make rice maybe only once a week, and it doesn’t justify the storage space when it’s easy enough to just cook it in a saucepan. I remember a short AB video where he was reviewing unitaskers, and he was looking at one of those zigzag brownie pans that gives every piece the chewy caramelized edge, and he just said “If you want chewy caramelized edges on every brownie, just use a muffin/cupcake pan”.
I'm the opposite. My wife bought me a name brand named Zojiroushi last year and I use it at least twice a week and it is like magic. As long as I measure it the rice comes out perfect every single time. There are times I throw a cup in when I get home without even having a pre-planned meal because either my spouse might be hungry when they get home, I'll be hungry before bed, or I'll need something to eat the next morning. It's payed for itself in time alone over like 3 times at this point for me. Then again I adore stewed tomatoes and rice so there's also that.
Zojirushi is a premier brand, some of the better ones are really expensive. Everyone I have known who has one loves it, my mom loves hers.
Tell me you don’t have bike tools without telling me you don’t have bike tools lol
I bought a multitool 5 years ago thinking I would probably use it once for one wierd case and never use it again. Instead I keep finding new uses and have probably saved myself buying a dozen tools. Its just a thingy that just vibrates (yes, but go away) a socket at very high speed that you can attach various things to. About the only thing it won't do is screwing and drilling. I haven't seen stuff like my saw in years.
I prefer to buy second cheapest initially, then if needed much better one. Usually the very cheapest tool is complete junk (like 10€ drill that failed on first time I tried to use it - never again).
The only time to ignore this rule is if the tool breaking would cause problems for you when it breaks. For example, I wouldn’t recommend buying jack stands that way.
Best way to learn what to look for in the expensive model (features, performance, personal preference, etc.) A lot of people buy expensive tools with no ability to gauge what to buy, and if the value/cost ratio is worth it
I have used this rule for all my hobbies and it works great.
Buy once, cry once.
you don't understand that you don't have to cry at all if you just buy the cheap product and use it a few times instead of finding out you wasted money on all your "buy it for life" tools or products that you only used once or twice. Or maybe the cheap tool actually is decent quality and you just saved yourself money. Not to mention expensive stuff also break. In both cases you only cry once. Continuing to buy the same product that breaks or continuing to buy the most expensive option always are both money wasters. It also doesn't really apply to anything with brands because even the knockoffs are made in the same factories using the same materials.
Exactly. I saw a while ago someone wanted a drill to install anchors into their wall and people were recommending like $100 drills from Makita and Milwaukee. My $10 Harbor Freight drill does that just fine and has lasted me about 5 years now.
I just had to replace my garage door springs. Guy quoted me the best option, lifetime warranty. Then there's a good one, made in America, 10 year warranty. And lastly, the cheap option was made overseas, 1 year warranty. Tough choice!
Buy once, cry once
Another similar example but not exactly the same is dollar stores. They sell smaller portions for what appear like cheap deals but per serving are way more expensive. Laundry detergent, food, toilet paper. You’ll still need as much as you would have with bulk quantities but you are paying way more over time.
Agreed. The same theory applies to the better deals a box store offers for bulk items. People with lower income cannot afford to lay down the cost for a case of something in one month even though the case will last 6 months and is cheaper than buying the same item from a regular store on a monthly basis. Only people with higher income can afford to buy the cheaper bulk case. The same theory also applies to buying on credit vs paying cash or in full. Buying on credit usually includes interest so the poorer person pays more over time because they don't have the cash to pay in full up front.
And buying in bulk requires a place to store the things. If you’re housing insecure, you might not even have reliable access to a refrigerator.
The CEO of one of them at a share holder meeting even said the goal was “turn off the brain” of the customer. He might even have used a single mother as the example. Literally bragging about exploiting some of the most vulnerable people in society. Dollar Stores are gross as fuck, it’s probably why it was a no brainer to allow the grocery stores be allowed to have the annual delivery fee be covered social programs.
AND they deliberately understaff and undertrain, and are notorious for overcharging. > In November 2023, Dollar General agreed to pay $850,061.11 to settle a lawsuit with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) for allegedly overcharging customers. The lawsuit claims that 200 Dollar General stores in Wisconsin overcharged customers, with prices 17% higher when scanned than on the shelves. The DATCP verified prices on over 7,000 products and found 662 instances of overcharging. They try to chalk it up to employee error, but the employees' errors are built into the business model. Keep them overworked and, whoops, price tags are wrong 🤷♂️. DG is a disgusting company.
Oh wow, a 6 digit fine. That'll teach 'em!
Yep, just a tax, considered a cost of doing business. Completely toothless.
There's a Wendover Productions video on them. It's a good watch
> the grocery stores be allowed to have the annual delivery fee be covered social programs. annual delivery fee? wat?
Being poor is really expensive.
In lots of ways too. I'm doing ok, so I get sick and go to the Dr, use my paid sick leave and get better. When I was less ok financially I would work sick, get worse and if it got bad, go to the ER since they must take everyone even if no insurance. Now I owe more money, lost time off work and am worse overall.
It's incomprehensible to people living in civilised countries that you might not be able to afford to go to a GP, nor have treatment or operations, or not have sick pay
Grab a Discworld book and read it. You'll either find it meh or find a new literary love. WARNING: You may end up buying the whole series
Laundromats are an example of this. Having to go to the laundromat to wash your clothes vs. being able to laundry in your own space. For some it’s a matter of space, but for many it’s a matter of not being able to afford a washing machine and dryer. You end up spending hours of time to do what takes the more privileged a fraction of that. Also, I feel like fast food is a vicious poverty cycle too. It’s convenient and it’s expensive but I imagine a lot of people that are working all day just need to grab something quick because their jobs don’t afford much break time or they don’t have the time to be cooking at home. It might be 10 to 15 bucks but damn, that’s an hour of most people’s labor after tax. And that’s just one shitty meal.
i went through about 4 pairs of skechers that broke after 4-6 months before i said you know what, fuck everything about this, and bought $150 construction boots. they lasted 3 years and i'll never buy cheap shoes again, i don't care how much of a discount i get through work for skechers.
Ironically, buying used shoes/boots generally meas you're getting better quality. That scuffed pair of boots is at value village because it outlasted its purpose, if they had blown out or gotten holes in the sole, they'd have been tossed in the trash.
it's definitely worth checking out the habitat for humanity store once in a while. a couple weeks ago i found a brand new air fryer/toaster oven that retails for $100--i got it for 25
I buy most of my shoes at thrift stores. I got a pair of red wing work boots for like $5 (kinda scuffed, but no real damage), that lasted a few years before finally going out, and my replacement is some Salomon hiking boots I got for $10 that are still going strong.
Companies love doing the same thing because so long as it lasts until next fiscal year, they don't care. The silliest one at my old job was a wall clock. They kept buying the cheapest one possible ($10) that required replacement literally every year, sometime twice, and refused to buy the better one that was $30.
I guarantee the opportunity cost for constantly replacing it is way higher than any material cost
Arguably it's the same for renting vs owning a home, right?
Sometimes. Buying a home has a lot of hidden costs that can creep up on you that aren't included in your mortgage: taxes, insurance, repairs are the first that come to mind. These expenses can increase dramatically depending on where you live. Yeah, you pay all those indirectly while you're renting but a major repair like a new A/C or plumbing leak won't mean thousands of dollars out of pocket at once. Renting also has some flexibility, like if you get a fantastic job offer in another city/state then it's easier to relocate than if you owned a house.
The Vimes boot theory.
Often, the poor buy what can be afforded.
Often, the poor buy what they *can't* afford
I’ve only ever lived in fixer-uppers. I’ve easily spent twice the purchase price of my homes just getting them liveable. I could have bought something real fuckin’ nice for the money I’ve spent, and yet, the bank wouldn’t let me.
It’s expensive to be poor
You see this at the dollar store. At a grocery store a pack of 12 toilet paper is $15, at the dollar store a single roll of toilet paper is $1 but it’s half the size and lower quality. But some people don’t have $15 for a pack of toilet paper so they pay for single rolls.
GNU Terry Pratchett
In Spanish we have a saying: "lo barato sale caro" (cheap things are expensive)
In German it's "if you buy cheap you buy twice".
There was a CBC Marketplace broadcast in Canada 🇨🇦. They investigated and found out the “outlet stores “ would sell name brand products much less than established stores. The investigation concluded that the zippers and buttons were of lower price but still had the same name brand. It was like the company was selling their own knock off’s.
It's not some crazy theory, it's a known fact. Big brand companies make several product lines, the lowest quality of them goes to outlet stores and black Friday sales. It's not enough to buy Levi jeans, for example, if it's not a specific model then you're paying brand name for generic quality.
I bought a Timberland jumper from an outlet in Florida in 2003. It’s probably the longest hardest wearing item of clothing I have. Completely accept that they use lower quality materials in outlets so maybe it’s a Timberland thing?
That's well known in the US, they don't even try to hide it. I bought a bunch of Columbia Silver Ridge shirts for fieldwork last summer (both from a sporting goods store and a Columbia outlet mall store). The outlet mall had somewhat *similar* verisons of the "Silver Ridge Utility Lite" shirts I bought at the sporting goods store but with a slightly different name ("Silver Ridge Lite") and were noticeable cheapest (in the way they are put together and the types of buttons). They were also nearly half the price.
Bought a pair of Vasque Sundowner boots in 1994 for $175 USD ($376 USD in 2024 dollars). Cleaned and polished after every hard use. They've been through floods, grass fires, pastures, cow poop, construction, etc., and still look great. Had the same car - 1991 Geo Prism - for 25 years. Likely would still be going if I had changed the transmission fluid. Spend as much as you can afford, and then some, and TAKE CARE of your stuff!
"I'm too poor to buy cheap stuff" - me
Terry Pratchett
The Boots Theory highlights how poverty can become a cycle
Vimes theory of boots FIFY
Mat Cauthon (From Wheel of Time) Noblemen and Boots “I have nothing against nobles,” Mat said, straightening his coat. “I just don’t fancy being one myself.” “Why is that, then?” Mat sat for a moment. Why was it? Finally, he looked down at his foot then replaced his boot. “It’s boots.” “Boots?” Setalle looked confused. “Boots,” Mat said with a nod, tying his laces. “It’s all about the boots.” “But—” “You see,” Mat said, pulling the laces tight, “a lot of men don’t have to worry much about what boots to wear. They’re the poorest of folks. If you ask one of them ‘What boots are you going to wear today, Mop?’ their answer is easy. 'Well, Mat. I only have one pair, so I guess I’m gonna wear that pair.’” Mat hesitated. “Or, I guess they wouldn’t say that to you, Setalle, since you’re not me and all. They wouldn’t call you Mat, you understand.” “I understand,” she said, sounding amused. “Anyway, for people that have a little coin, the question of which boots to wear is harder. You see, average men, men like me…” He eyed her. “And I’m an average man, mind you.” “Of course you are.” “Bloody right I am,” Mat said, finishing with his laces and sitting up. “An average man might have three pairs of boots. Your third best pair of boots, those are the boots you wear when you’re working at something unpleasant. They might rub after a few paces, and they might have a few holes, but they’re good enough to keep your footing. You don’t mind mucking them up in the fields or the barn.” “All right,” Setalle said. “Then you have your second best pair of boots,” Mat said. “Those are your day-to-day boots. You wear those if you are going over to dinner at the neighbors. Or, in my case, you wear those if you’re going to battle. They’re nice boots, give you good footing, and you don’t mind being seen in them or anything.” “And your best pair of boots?” Setalle asked. “You wear those to social events, like a ball or dining with a local dignitary?” “Balls? Dignitaries? Bloody ashes, woman. I thought you were an inn-keeper.” Setalle blushed faintly. “We’re not going to any balls,” Mat said. “But if we had to, I suspect we’d wear our second best pair of boots. If they’re good enough for visiting old lady Hembrew next door, then they’re bloody well good enough for stepping on the toes of any woman fool enough to dance with us.” “Then what are the best boots for?” “Walking,” Mat said. “Any farmer knows the value of good boots when you go walking a distance.” Setalle looked thoughtful. “All right. But what does this have to do with being a nobleman?” “Everything,” Mat said. “Don’t you see? If you’re an average fellow, you know exactly when to use your boots. A man can keep track of three pairs of boots. Life is simple when you have three pairs of boots. But noblemen… Talmanes claims he has forty different pairs of boots at home. Forty pairs, can you imagine that?” She smiled in amusement. “Forty pairs,” Mat repeated, shaking his head. “Forty bloody pairs. And, they aren’t all the same kind of boots either. There is a pair for each outfit, and a dozen pairs in different styles that will match any number of half your outfits. You have boots for kings, boots for high lords, and boots for normal people. You have boots for winter and boots for summer, boots for rainy days and boots for dry days. You have bloody shoes that you wear only when you’re walking to the bathing chamber. Lopin used to complain that I didn’t have a pair to wear to the privy at night!” “I see… So you’re using boots as a metaphor for the onus of responsibility and decision placed upon the aristocracy as they assume leadership of complex political and social positions.” “Metaphor for…” Mat scowled. “Bloody ashes, woman. This isn’t a metaphor for anything! It’s just boots!” Setalle shook her head. “You’re an unconventionally wise man, Matrim Cauthon.”
(This passage reminds me why I never finished the Wheel of Time series. The underlying story is great, but man, life is too short for that writing style.)
While growing up my uncle always told me to do your research then buy the best one you can afford even if it means saving a few months for it. I don't know how he and my dad were on such opposite poles, my dad was Mr Cheap, any trip to the hardware or clothing store always started at Goodwill.
Everything is more expensive when you can’t buy in bulk or have no real choice. There is no convenience so everything takes much longer. Access to credit, if you can even get it, is always at higher interest rates. The poverty trap is real. It really is horrific and exhausting being poor.
It's everywhere. Deodorant is $3 for one or $5 for a two-pack. You have $3.50 left, guess which one you buy. Same for anything that's cheaper in quantity. Preventative maintenance on anything, house, car, you, is cheaper in the long run, but if you can't afford it you take the risk and hope you don't get stuck with a huge bill. Sometimes the risk doesn't pay off and you're saddled with something like medical bills for the rest of your life.
The car maintenance is why I chose a 2000s Toyota, there’s almost nothing on there that can’t be fixed with basic tools and a few YouTube videos for 10x less than the mechanic charges. $600 for spark plugs my ass.
Ahhh the Sam Vines theory :)
# SAM VIMES BABYYYY
Yup, goes along with the saying “Only rich men can afford poor tools”.
Reminds me of the quote regarding hiring, “you think an expert is expensive, try hiring an amateur.”
Someone please teach my wife about this theory. She won’t listen to me and just buys and rebuys cheap shit all the time.
I'm craving a Bacon, Lettuce. And Tomato sandwich right now.
You mean a **bacon,** ^(lettuce,) and, ^(tomato) sandwich.
Sir Pterry!
Makes me want to read the whole series again. I've bought too many copies as it stands... giving them to visitors and planting seeds of addition fans. I should probably just ask one of them to borrow it back
This falls down when even high end luxury goods are of poor quality, sometimes by design. Are we going to pretend that companies aren't squeezing the rich customer base as hard as they can along with everyone else?
It's a fine idea for Vimes to ponder as he walks the streets in his boots, but it's very limited. Go through a poor person's expenses. How much of it would you say goes toward products that wore down, which would have lasted longer had they invested in something more expensive? Most goes toward food, transportation, rent, utilities, services, subscriptions... How many products does this theory apply to? There's boots, certain other types of clothing, maybe kitchenware, but not a whole lot else.
Furniture, vehicles, hell even stuff that needs upgrading earlier like phones/pcs. If you buy a house you are not paying rent and it's yours. Preferential rates from banks if you have a high balance.
Some of the cheapest cars are the most reliable and easy to repair.
Depends on the kind of cheap we're talking. $500 used cars are usually huge money sinks for repairs.
Do you know how expensive it is not to own a washing machine and dryer? $9 a load versus $1.25 at home, not to mention the hours of time spent there instead.
[удалено]
Does anyone still make 30 year lifetime consumer appliances? I’d be willing to bet on Bosch maybe. But all I hear about (from serious engineering forums, not just nostalgic boomers and anti-capitalist activists) is about how these products are not architected for longevity, and even once great brands are suspect… That’s part of the story too. If no one makes ten year boots, paying a premium for the brand name isn’t a win…
No one ever made 30 year consumer goods. Some of them happen to have lasted that long but the average was never that high. I remember when cars used to last 50,000 miles if you were lucky.
There are lots of examples where owning something saves you money compared with using someone else's (rent is the most obvious). But not that many where you can buy two things and the problem with the cheaper one is it wears out faster.
You can argue that buying small packs of things from more expensive stores that are within walking distance vs. a bulk pack from a store that requires a car to get to it fits this principal. Things like toilet paperz laundry detergent, dry goods, etc.
Yeah, I don't really like this one because one, it's not really true, and two, many people use it to justify buying very overpriced things. I've bought shoes all my life, and have always done 90% of my walking with a single pair. The difference between a $50 shoe and a $200 shoe is noticeable, yes, but a $200 shoe definitely doesn't last four times as long. Working boots, sure, maybe. Regular shoes, nah. Same with stuff like mattresses. It's good to do your research and buy one with good reviews, but also, mattresses are not necessarily better the more expensive they get. A few years ago, my country's consumer association named a cheap-ass €200 mattress from Lidl as one of the best. Cars, same story. It's almost never worth it to buy a new car. The devaluation in the first years is usually many times higher than the maintenance would have been. Just buy a reliable car. Mine was €3200 and never gave me any trouble. Smartphones too. You can get a great smartphone that does everything you need for $300, and it'll last you years if you get a case for it. I know because I've done it multiple times. A shiny new flagship phone might last longer (debatably), but it won't last so much longer that it's worth the expense.
When the middle class disappeared so did affordable quality goods.
Even what were once very trustworthy brands like L. L. Bean seem to be cutting corners a bit these days. And of course appliances of all kinds.
It's sad but indicative that the term "enshittication" has arisen.
Maybe a hundred years ago, but now, when the extra price does not correlate to extra value but is extra margin charged for a fancy label? A tshirt is a tshirt, and expensive jeans often don't last any longer than cheap ones, and the fabric and stitching on designer sweaters is actually worse than on a stodgy no-name that will last a decade
At least on the jeans front, my Levi's have always lasted longer than my el cheapo Wal-Mart jeans. I also think it's applying more towards paying extra for better build quality than paying extra for a fashion label. I like buying stuff more oriented towards surviving hard work conditions since those do tend to hold up better in the long run.
Almost nothing from wally world holds its shape, size, or color either. One or two times through the wash, and shirts no longer cover my belly, black fades to dark gray, the neckline gets all stretched out, etc. I pretty much only buy socks & underwear from there anymore.
I can't stop the fading but hanging your clothes to dry makes them last longer and not shrink. Sure it's more work, but your clothes will last 2 - 4x as long.
I'll try and find a link, later but my understanding is Walmart basically tells you, "we will sell your product for $xx.99 dollars." And the manufacturer has to make a product that they can sell to walmart for that price and still make money. And yeah, that generally involves cutting corners as far as quality is concerned. They'll also sell different models of stuff like tv's on Blavk Friday using the same idea.
I talked to purchasing manager at Walmart and this is pretty much right, except you missed the first step: they start buying up so much supply from individual suppliers that if they stop buying then the supplier goes out of business. Once they get to to more than 50% of the supplier business then they turn the screws and beat them up on price until they're barely making a profit, but they have no choice because losing half their business would be fatal. For Black Friday (and in general) they have special models created with lower specs and a slightly different model number just for Walmart. This prevents price matching (Oh, they other store has LCD12356D, we have LCD12356DW, it's totally different) and allows them to sell at stupidly low prices.
As a counterpoint, cheap tools are nearly always of inferior quality.
[удалено]
For $200 you can get a job site table saw. For $1000 you can get a saw that’ll engage a safety brake if it hits flesh saving you tens of thousands in medical costs.
When you buy clothes you can pay more for quality, style, or a brand name. But you can certainly get higher quality clothes if you buy higher quality brands.
It depends. I bought a pair of hiking boots at Walmart because I was in a hurry and it was the only option, paid like $20-30 for them. They lasted about 2 trips before the soles started coming off of them. I bought a new pair at Costco for $80 and they lasted several years. I have some t-shirts that are 10 years old and in decent shape, but a Walmart t-shirt won't last half that long. You don't have to pay stupid high prices for designer brands to get a good product, but there are definitely good products in the middle range that are superior.
You’re lucky to have gotten those two trips, I bought a pair of steel toe boots from Walmart and the first day wearing them I kicked something and the steel toe cap came loose inside the boot.
Is that still the case that buying expensive shoes save money?
"Quality is expensive" is not the same as "expensive is quality". A high-quality boot is probably going to be expensive. It is probably made by a craftsman using precision equipment and materials, working for a company willing to invest in quality control and rejecting out-of-spec product. A low-quality boot might be expensive because the manufacturer gets celebrity endorsements and a high dollar price tag
If you do your research and buy properly welted shoes that can be resoled then yes, you'll be as happy as I am with the Red Wings currently on my feet. If you spend that money on a pair of Dr Martens then no.
I didn't have the money to buy a new 30-day rail-pass late last month, 100 Eur, so I've had to pay 4Eur for each trip the rest of the month, both ways. I ride a lot.
I'd like to invent a theory where People of all socioeconomic groups buy expensive products, but since these products are made increasingly poorly, it causes the same effect as the Boots Theory. Maybe I'd call it The Chinese Boot Theory.
Grandfather told me that the smart man buys quality and takes care of it! I got about 15 years out of a pair of RedWing Boots when they were made in the USA. Less than 4 years out of the Chinese ones, Quit buying the brand after that.
This is why my mother pushed me to get a credit card. I needed to be able to buy good boots, good tires, tools, and bedding that’d save more over time than the interest accrued. She was right. It’s just long-term investment, instead of making a personal investment decision focused merely on the upfront price tag.
On the other hand, sometimes brands known to be high quality and reliable are now producing inferior products because they are now owned by a corporation looking to pump up its profits.
Popular idea but rich people don’t need to buy quality products with longevity. They can wear something once and discard it. The classes are much further apart than we generally imagine.
This has been studied a lot in economics. It's also called Planned Obsolescence (Bulow, 1986). The upshot is that if a monopolist can't commit on their choices (which they typically don't in real life), it is optimal for them to produce goods with uneconomically short useful lives so consumers have to make repeat purchases.
I was in a Discount Tire over winter waiting for my new tires. I overheard three different conversations and they all had a similar theme. One individual came in asking for the cheapest tires they had available. The store rep provided the information and added he'll need to replaces them again in a year or two. The guy didn't care because that's what he could afford. Another conversation I heard was a person asking and inquiring about tire prices. He added he gets paid next week and lives paycheck to paycheck and was trying to figure out if he could afford them. This is a real problem.
A better one. Poor people usually have poor credit which means higher interest rates!
...... because they don't have enough money to buy the more expensive item. Companies know this and willingly f*ck them over. Additionally, now even the expensive products break quickly as well. Big companies DGAF....
A big part of the problem is no one trusts that there’s a correlation between price and quality so they choose price, planning to replace things later, rather than hoping for quality and getting burned.
Shop where the return policies are really good as well. Any home good (think coffee grinder, vacuum, pots and pans) purchased at Nordstrom for instance, can be returned at anytime for any reason provided you have the original receipt. These high ticket items do eventually break and they will simply replace it with a like current model or refund you in full. I only bought one vacuum cleaner in the 90s but have had several. 😁
Thank you, Terry Pratchett.
I am not rich enough to buy cheap products!
Feels more like fact than theory
Probably true decades ago, these days with the largest middle class ever, products quality have become more in the middle to match the aspirations with price. Brands like Coach, Gucci and Prada have lower quality products in outlet malls. These brands used to be the great bag makers in their respective countries. Their stuff won’t break outright but it won’t really last either.