Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#21

Post by ComputerGuru »

tryauuum wrote: post #18
ComputerGuru wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s him posting to his own list. Think of it as an old-fashioned blog post.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#22

Post by theshrike79 »

mattlondon wrote: post #8

I 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 also makes it ok to not finish a game.

If you bought a game for 60€ and played it for 20-30 hours but didn't finish it, I still count it as a net positive. 2€/hour for a good time, it's hard to beat that.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#24

Post by Moldoteck »

newtom wrote: post #13
mattlondon wrote: post #8

I 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.

Where I was born, buying licensed games was hard/impossible, so I just used pirated content. Now, even if I can afford to buy, I still try out a pirated version and if it's good, I buy the game in steam(got Witcher & age of empires 4 this way) *(with some exceptions when pirated content gives superior experience, for example AC2/brotherhood where some content can't be accessed no matter how you pay)

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#25

Post by ooterness »

mattlondon wrote: post #8

I 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.

Surely quality should factor in somehow? I would much rather play a short, innovative game than a long grind-fest.

Unless you're Papa Burch: "If you watch Paul Blart: Mall Cop seven times in a row, it's better than Citizen Kane, The Godfather, and Gone With The Wind combined."

https://youtu.be/jI2zxBAIepI?feature=shared

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#26

Post by theshrike79 »

rozap wrote: post #14
delgaudm wrote: post #3

A 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.

Money follows money, that's how it works.

If someone invests 100€ and makes 1% of profit, they got an extra 1€. You can maybe buy a cup of coffee with it.

But if a someone invests a million euros and gets 1% of profit, they get 1000€. That's a cup of coffee every day for almost 3 years.

Exact same investment, very different outcomes.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#27

Post by ozim »

david38 wrote: post #20
delgaudm wrote: post #3

A 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.

I wonder what would be example of a product that people would not need at all if educated?

I'd say bunch of cleaning chemicals when vinegar does the job or "branded chemicals" simply contain vinegar anyway.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#28

Post by Anderkent »

delgaudm wrote: post #3

A 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…

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

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#29

Post by kurthr »

david38 wrote: post #20
delgaudm wrote: post #3

A 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.

Very few people these days don't have access to credit. If you knew you would save 50% over a couple of years, even credit card rates would be better than break even. The real problem is a lack of knowledge, interest, or simply caring about priorities. More likely the CC get's maxed out and payday loans are the next step in a downward spiral.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#30

Post by robocat »

liminalsunset wrote: post #2

I personally use a related version of this, and it's a lot simpler. Cost per month . The biggest factor in buying something for me is typically resale value vs what I pay for it. This is why I always buy the Amazon Marketplace Used items, or used items from local sellers, where available. This way, I mentally only consider the depreciation over the period of time I use the item as the cost. Usually, the depreciation…

I try that but it usually doesn't work well.

For cheap items - it usually costs me more time and effort to sell than the item is worth. I might do it anyway because it helps others.

For expensive items the problem is risk - especially due to "the market for lemons".

I rarely get market price because I prefer to be honest about the known problems. For example: a car has lots of invisible known issues when you've had it a while. Paying to fix the problems before sale is just not worth it (for multiple good reasons).

Post reply on HN