[CodeBytes]

This feels like it's becoming less and less true, good quality items are becoming so expensive now or very hard to find.

I do think it is still very true for tools though. It's nearly always worth getting decent ones, they nearly give better results or are easier to use and last so much longer.

[Rebelgecko]

I'm a big fan of the Harbor Freight Pareto Principle

If you're a hobbyist or doing something at home, a lot of the times you're gonna buy some random tool and only use it a few times. 80% of the time, the Harbor Freight knockoff is going to be good enough. If you use a tool so much that it breaks, then it's time to spring for the expensive and high quality version.

However you may want to go straight to the nice version for things that have safety implications (skip the infamous Harbor Freight jack stands)

[entuno]

> The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

The "boots" item feels less true, because expensive doesn't seem to be as correlated with "good quality" as it used to. But the general statement still very much stands.

Things like financial products that charge higher interest rates to poorer people, or services that offer discounts for paying annually rather than monthly are great examples of this. And less direct things, like being able to drive to cheaper shops and buy in bulk, or being able to do preventative maintenance to avoid a cheap fix turning into an expensive one.

It can still apply to individual items, as long as you're careful about what you buy and do your research to make sure you're actually buying high quality boots, and not just cheap ones with an expensive logo on the side.

[tialaramex]

It's also just broadly true about whole categories. For example home ownership. Most poor people rent, which means having a place to live costs them money, but they get nothing for that money as a result, they just need to keep paying forever.

Utilities, in my country people who aren't trusted to pay for electricity, gas, even water (which you need to live!) in arrears have to pay up front for it, so maybe I use 500 kWh of electricity, and I've agreed to pay 20p per kWh = £100, at the end of the month I get a bill for £100 and I settle that a few days later, if I don't eventually I get angry letters and eventually a court summons. That's electricity I used two weeks ago and I won't even pay for it until May. But if I was poor, I might find my best option is I pre-pay £10 to get 40 kWh of electricity. So that 500kWh would cost £120 and I have to buy it first before I use it and if at any time I forget or can't pay the lights go off immediately that my credit runs out.

[lotsofpulp]

>Things like financial products that charge higher interest rates to poorer people, or services that offer discounts for paying annually rather than monthly are great examples of this.

Exchange of future cash flows are not comparable to a one time exchange of goods or services due to the risk of default.

> And less direct things, like being able to drive to cheaper shops and buy in bulk, or being able to do preventative maintenance to avoid a cheap fix turning into an expensive one.

This is a good example, but the best example I can think of is having sufficient cash flow to be able to purchase a home in a higher socioeconomic neighborhood, because if you have kids, you are effectively paying almost nothing for a higher quality education since a lot of comes back to you in the form of equity and your child’s increased chances of financial stability.