[sacred_numbers]

I see so many people talk about the Boots theory, and while I don't disagree, there's another side to the story. What if you buy a really nice pair of boots that will last a lifetime and then a couple years later you move to a beach town where you wear sandals all day? Or what if you get paralyzed and have no need for durable shoes? The point is that life is unpredictable and both your circumstances and preferences can change quickly. Also, to extend the analogy further, imagine you have a dog that decides that your boots are a good chew toy. A dog can tear a hole in a pair of $50 boots almost as easily as a pair of $10 boots. I t doesn't matter if the boots last a lifetime of normal use if they get destroyed in six months by an abnormal event.

[ukoki]

You've perfectly described one half of what makes me uneasy about "boots theory" which is the added risk of making fewer, larger purchases. The other half is that I find that often the more expensive choice does not have as much quality as needed. Boots theory depends on finding product choices where quality (ie durability, ie expected lifetime) increases faster than price. But my personal experience is that quality increases slower than price. I worry that most boots that cost say 5x the baseline budget boot might have less than 5x the "quality" and therefore expected lifetime. I'd guess my last boots were 5x price, 3x quality, so buying them cost me 2x the cost of the budget boot in terms of lost lifetime value. Finding that boot that has >5x quality is difficult and requires all sorts of extra work working out what reviews to trust etc, and risky because if you make a mistake you could be out of pocket for many multiples of the budget choice cost.

Boots theory is attractive because it's pretty obvious that more expensive products are nearly always better quality. But what actually matters is whether the increase in quality is greater than the increase in price, which I think is much less obvious.

[Tijdreiziger]

I have heard the advice to ‘buy twice’. The first time you buy a tool (e.g. boots), you’re really just trying it out, so buy a reasonably priced type. If you end up using the tool so often that you want a better one, then go ahead and buy the best type you can afford.

[lbriner]

Yes, I was told the same. Lots of us have bought e.g. expensive power tools or electronics gadgets that we have hardly ever used!

[wpietri]

It makes more sense if you look at it from the manufacturer/seller perspective. When customers are extremely price sensitive, what do you cut from your product?

There are plenty of answers to the question. But one approach is to make sure it looks as good and works as well for the return period, but doesn't last as long. E.g., you use less material, short the structure in favor of the surface, use lower-quality material, invest less in production quality, or offer shorter warranties.

For example, think of a raincoat. On one end of the spectrum we have the $0.99 disposable poncho, which is basically a garbage bag with a different cut. Up from there are all sorts of methods of improvement: https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/rainwear.html

The better raincoats tend to be correlated with price because if a feature doesn't require additional expense, low-end manufacturers will just add it. And also because while many consumers aren't discerning about quality, many are, and will pay extra for it. Places like Wirecutter and Consumer Reports do the sort of testing that helps keep people honest.

That said, you're very right that there are many other things that influence price. A Burberry raincoat will be 10x the price of REI's favorite raincoats, but it won't last 10x as long. So Boots Theory, which is about good pairs of boots being more expensive than shoddy ones, is correct. But you can't work it the other way and claim that expensive things are always good in the way a night watchman thinks about his work boots.

[godelski]

> Or what if you get paralyzed and have no need for durable shoes?

While this is possible, I don't think that's really something you can go about with your life. Shit luck does happen. But you can keep your boots away from your dog.

You should acknowledge black swans, but you shouldn't plan your entire life around accounting for them.

[bumby]

This is a risk perspective (and a correct one). But the risk is quantifiable. It's generally probability x severity.

So what's my probability of moving to a beach town and never needing boots again? Probably very low, since I will be unlikely to move and even if I did I would still use my boots for things like hiking, working around the house, etc. The risk is therefore very small as well. The same can be applied to your other scenarios. Uncertainty makes us uncomfortable, but it can often be reasonably quantified.

[gompertz]

The boots theory also falls flat in regards to style. I've never seen a single person wear boots older than maybe 10 years. Paying 3x-5x on anything with the "once a lifetime" ideology only works for timeless stuff like wrenches, measuring cups, or anything that hasn't remotely changed since 1945. Which is a very small list.

[The-Bus]

I know someone with vintage Doc Martens from the 90s that they still wear. I personally find Doc Martens uncomfortable, but I am happy to introduce you to them so you can confirm that old boots do get worn.

I have a pair of dress shoes that are approaching ten years old. I spent more than I ever had on any pair of shoes but they continue to be comfortable and are easy enough to resole, clean, etc.

There are enough items in the world of apparel (I hesitate to use the word "fashion") that are timeless, at least on the scale of a human lifetime. My belt is twenty years old. My watch (due for service) is over twenty years old.

A good shirt will last longer than a cheap shirt. If you buy carefully (i.e. not just what's in "fashion" that season), it can work for a long time.

I had a US-made dress shirt that lasted me close to 15 years and I think I spent less than $40 on it. It's a shame those mills are long gone because few shirts last that long and I'm not willing to find out if spending $400 on a shirt gets me the same quality.

At some point clothes become a Veblen good. The idea is to spend on quality, not on marketing or details that don't add to the durability of the item.

[bumby]

Style only matters if part of your value proposition is the status an item confers. Using the earlier example, a $400 phone won't get you any cool kid points, but I'm assuming the OP is basing their decision on functionality more than form/status.

[ghaff]

Utilitarian boots that can be resoled/repaired can absolutely last a very long time. I have a custom made pair of hiking boots that are a good 20 years old or more. If you're referring to fashion wear, you're quite right.

[imtringued]

The boots theory is questionable because the difference between shoes isn't that big. What the story actually talks about is that poor people barely have enough to cover their daily needs. The rich have more than enough and they use the surplus for truly "durable goods" like education.

[tunap]

Additionally, what if all you carry is a swiss army knife? It does everything you need and want it to do. Yet, when you lose or break that SAK, you're left with nothing to do your tasks with.

If my laptop, tablet, Garmin GPS or phone break, I am inconvenienced. As opposed to, completely dead in the water.