Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by grrrrrbox 1504 days ago
Quantity is usually more expensive than quality in the long run, though. This idea has been succinctly popularized by the "boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness":

>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 a 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory

3 comments

That's BS and everyone who's not trying to justify a bunch of money they sunk into "premium" products knows it.

There is some relationship between price and quality (and I find this to be most true with things that are short term consumables vs longer term ones like clothing, home goods, etc). Namely you never get more than you pay for. But even assuming you're not getting less than you pay for (which happens a lot) the relationship is still rarely close enough to linear to work out in favor of anything but the cheapest goods or the cheapest goods that meet some specific criteria or feature that yields longer life.

Rich people's stuff lasts longer in large part because they can afford to over-provision and objects that are getting used at a fraction of "what they're good for" whereas poor people are buying the bare minimum and using it at 10/10ths right out of the gate.

Think about where a clipboard warrior on a construction site goes and what they do. Of course their clothing lasts longer than the general laborer who's climbing/crawling all sorts of places over all sorts of things and moving all sorts of material. They could buy the crappiest boots money can buy and still have them outlast anything the laborer wears.

The wealthy person buys a premium mixer that's more than up to the task of mixing what they want to mix. The poor person mixes bread dough with their Amazon-China special and hopes it's good enough.

The wealthy person pays for delivery or rents a truck. The poor person paid for the bump stops he's gonna use the bump stops.

And by wealthy here I mean HN white collar class people vs mid range blue collar type stuff.

I really hate that quote. For one, it is frequently hard to tell when you are actually getting quality by spending more. Sometimes you might just be paying for the label. For another, nice things often require expensive maintenance. Boots you will keep must be resoled periodically. Or you might not need or want to wear the same boots for years and years.

It's not at all uncommon for the cheap thing to be much cheaper in total cost of ownership (TCO) than the "quality" item. Take a look at Edmunds TCO numbers for cars, for example. And back to Harbor Freight: I've heard of shops switching to Harbor Freight air tools because they're 1/10 the cost of the good stuff and last, I forget, something like 1/4 as long.

Price is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for quality, but that's no reason to throw out the idea. Harbor Freight is also not a bottom-barrel brand these days.

Cars are actually a great example. $30k will set you up with a Camry hybrid for >20 years. If you can only afford to finance a $15k econobox, you'll end up paying extra on interest, maintenance, and fuel while your car spends more time in the shop.

IMO this theory gets unfairly maligned by a strawman of "price == quality".

Cars are a great example when you compare just about any used car to being able to finance a new $15K econobox - the econobox will win on TCO. (And at low interest rates, you are better off holding on to your cash and financing). But not when comparing new cars. A $16K Chevrolet Spark LS has a five-year TCO of $26460. Your Camry Hybrid LE (at least twice as much as a Spark in cash outlay) has a five-year TCO of $31903. The Corolla L, which is a sort of benchmark of frugality, has a five-year TCO of $28814.
That was true more often in the old days, but I feel like by ~2000 top brands realized they can just mark up everything 1000%. Linked to rise of the 1% it seems.

It's still possible to be too cheap however.