[Anderkent]

The Boots theory is funny because it's absurd. It's not actually applicable to life in powerty. There is no class of items where if you are poor you spend more on it than when you're wealthy. People in poverty spend more _time_ on things, yeah, but not more money or money per use.

You can see some discussion on that from people who actually grew up poor in https://mastodon.social/@danluu/111068036776213383

[fragmede]

All items are cheaper in bulk, so the class of items that are more expensive for poor people is actually pretty much everything.

Being poor means your friends and family and roommates and neighbors are also broke, so you can't buy in bulk because they gonna steal yo shit. So you're forced to buy singles, which are more expensive. Being able to store the bulk goods from a CostCo run without them walking off is a privilege that you're taking for granted.

[cultofmetatron]

I see somethign similar to this in poor countries I've visited. people who are very poor don't have enough money to maintain a bank account so they just store cash. they have a mindset of spending what they have and never saving. I thought it was stupid till I realized that having a bunch of cash at home just makes you a target for getting robbed. SO you end up with people who spend as soon as they have over a certain amount of money because they never have enough to open a bank account. if you try to save enough for a bank account, there's a good chance the money will be stolen before you even get that far.

[8n4vidtmkvmk]

Ridiculous that banking isn't free. I never pay banking fees. But also.. it's the poor that get hit with the NSF fees and high interest rates which is also predatory.

[chii]

In a place like that, the banking infrastructure must be really poor.

And as a consequence, anyone who can improve this banking infrastructure can reap the rewards from this infrastructure.

[fragmede]

The US would be included in that category. The problem is that NSF fees are legal, and when you're close to the edge of your money, the payroll company having a problem and taking an extra day to deposit your paycheck, or two extra weeks at the start of a new job, means that the bank account gets hit with several NSF fees that you can't ever pay back, so you just have to let the account get closed for being overdrawn.

[user_7832]

> There is no class of items where if you are poor you spend more on it than when you're wealthy.

What about something like laundromat fees being higher than the running cost of a washing machine? There's also the concept of "poverty tax".

[cranky908canuck]

If you step back a bit from the boots example you can see the boots theory in action.

Consider socks (I know there's another thread that calls this a 'micro-optimization', likely right, but still...).

Never buy a pair of socks. Or, never buy one pair of socks -- buy a few packs, identical, well priced, and ideally on sale. If on sale, buy them now: if they're clearance, you may not get to come back tomorrow. Now you save:

- money: when one sock wears out, you don't need to discard an orphan. Also, if they are prone to early wearing out, you get enough warning to look for another sale.

- time: when sorting, you don't need to match individual socks --- the green ones all match

But a dozen or more pairs of socks looks like an investment when you are on minimum wage.

[wizofaus]

It's only not true because once you have money you're instinctively driven to advertise that to other people, meaning you'll spend money on items that say "I can afford these". But I certainly know of people who incorporate "buying well and buying once" into their general financial strategy and do well out of it. However I disagree it means they spend less time on things - even expensive well-made items need time invested into their maintenance to truly last (something I acknowledge despite being woefully bad at looking after almost anything I own).

[IanCal]

Hmm, there were many things in the UK that used to have essentially rental kind of options that were much more expensive in the long run (TVs and sofas) as well as energy being more expensive if you were poor (prepayment meters). The last one is still true, but much more limited now.

You don't need starvation level poverty though, remember the comparison point is with a salaried captain of the police. So if the point was "they don't spend more because they can't buy any shoes" it doesn't relate to the original Pratchett bit.

[BeefySwain]

You should go to a Midwest Dollar General and buy a days worth of food for a family of 5 and report back on if you think the theory still doesn't apply.

[idiotsecant]

What? There are a thousand things like that, not the least of which is healthcare.

[leetcrew]

it's true of household supplies and food. you can save a lot of money buying in bulk, but you need a car, ample storage, and cash up front to actually do this. I spend substantially less on paper towels and toilet paper than I did when I was limited to purchasing only what I could physically carry home with me.

of course, now that I can afford a car and a place to store months worth of paper towels, they are no longer a substantial part of my budget. go figure.

[michael1999]

There are many things where the poor spend more: laundry; check cashing; many groceries; and anything else where smaller purchases are less efficient.