Source: https://stephango.com/buy-wisely
Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use
11–20 of 94 posts
Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use
#12IMO if you primarily think in terms of cost per use, you're missing a big step in "financial maturity", because for expenses that are in the reasonable range, I think switching to evaluating based on their value to you is much more effective. Is the $8 Starbucks Frap worth the cost per use compared to a $2 drip coffee? Probably not, but it makes me happy, and the value on that is VERY high, and that value additionall…
This fits into the "cost per smile" heuristic lower down in the essay:
> How much joy can you get out of each dollar? Some things bring lots of joy for a small amount of money: ice cream, sunsets, nature walks. A cheap date can bring many smiles per dollar.
Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use
#13I do this a lot for games, but cost per hour. Some games now are really expensive (£60 etc) but if I get 40 hours entertainment out of it then per hour that is actually pretty good.
This is why I put a lot of games I’m not sure about on my Steam wishlist. Then when a game is “cheap enough” I buy it.
If my hunch was right and the game is only “ok”, but I got a few hours of enjoyment out of it for only a few bucks, I don’t have any buyers remorse.
Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use
#14A fine heuristic if you have enough money to make the choice in the first place. [1]Sam Vimes’s ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness, propounded in Men at Arms: "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 hun…
It's expensive to be poor.
Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use
#15A fine heuristic if you have enough money to make the choice in the first place. [1]Sam Vimes’s ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness, propounded in Men at Arms: "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 hun…
There are solutions. I find myself posting this [0] here on HN from time to time. It doesn’t work for everything (I’m not sure how well it would work for a pair of leather boots, though the same approach is theoretically possible there as well) but it is a step up from just continuing with the status quo.
[0]: https://www.mail-archive.com/kragen-tol@canonical.org/msg003...
Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use
#16Cost/use really only works well for things where the results of use are broadly equivalent across price tiers. In the example given, expensive socks and cheap socks are basically the same when new (they'll keep your feet warm, padded, and wick away moisture), the only difference is how long that lasts. For things like tools its often a bad metric unless you truly only need it once. In addition to durability; the ergo…
> In the example given, expensive socks and cheap socks are basically the same when new (they'll keep your feet warm, padded, and wick away moisture), the only difference is how long that lasts.
As someone who swears by high quality wool socks, I’m going to have to hard-disagree on this example.
Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use
#17IMO if you primarily think in terms of cost per use, you're missing a big step in "financial maturity", because for expenses that are in the reasonable range, I think switching to evaluating based on their value to you is much more effective. Is the $8 Starbucks Frap worth the cost per use compared to a $2 drip coffee? Probably not, but it makes me happy, and the value on that is VERY high, and that value additionall…
That only holds when you have unused money. Eg the "cost" of spending $8 doesn't remove another source of happiness, like a few days in Bora Bora.
I have a buddy who is constantly buying shit. Every day is a new "thing" and he talks about how he just buys what he wants.
Then I'll go on a nice trip or buy an expensive item and he'll be a bit jealous about it - but I actually spend less per year than he does on these things.
Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use
#18A fine heuristic if you have enough money to make the choice in the first place. [1]Sam Vimes’s ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness, propounded in Men at Arms: "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 hun…
There are solutions. I find myself posting this [0] here on HN from time to time. It doesn’t work for everything (I’m not sure how well it would work for a pair of leather boots, though the same approach is theoretically possible there as well) but it is a step up from just continuing with the status quo. [0]: https://www.mail-archive.com/kragen-tol@canonical.org/msg003...
what is this link? I only saw mailing lists, but this looks like a detached email
Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use
#19Posts like this make me think that we rediscover with every generation. Interesting to me that this particular author has found this, but also keenly aware that millions of people (billions?) have reached the same conclusions.
Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use
#20A fine heuristic if you have enough money to make the choice in the first place. [1]Sam Vimes’s ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness, propounded in Men at Arms: "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 hun…
Buying cheap in the US is more often due to ignorance of the item, quality, and frequency of future use.
Even most poor people, when educated about certain products can afford the quality item or change their habits to not need the item at all.