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

41–50 of 94 posts

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

#41

Post by wizofaus »

Anderkent wrote: post #28
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

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).

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

#42

Post by idiotsecant »

Anderkent wrote: post #28
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

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

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

#43

Post by BooneJS »

My 10 year old GORUCK GR1 backpack has been around the world and been my only carryon for most domestic flights. Plus it’s my every day commute to work pack. I’ve had to replace some heat shrink tubes on paracord zipper pulls but everything else should last at least another 10 years if not longer.

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

#44

Post by wizofaus »

kurthr wrote: post #29
david38 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Very few people in your country perhaps. But I'm pretty sure the % of the world's population with access to credit isn't especially high (apparently there are 2.5 billion credit cards in existence worldwide. But of course many of us in developed nations have more than 1).

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

#45

Post by stevezsa8 »

theshrike79 wrote: post #26
rozap wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1% of a million is 10k. But your point is still valid :]

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

#47

Post by xyzelement »

leptons wrote: post #35
xyzelement wrote: post #10

This really kicked in for me when I bought a grill. The first time I used it, that cost me "1500". The second, it was just 750 per bbq. By the time I cooked a hundred meals on it, it is a 15 bucks per meal. Etc. Longevity is obviously a big factor too

I spent $5000 on the fastest consumer computer available in 2011. It had a 6-core CPU which was pretty amazing at the time. I still use that same computer today as my main workstation. I've put a little bit of money into it over the years, expanding it. Most recently I bought the fastest CPU that would work in that motherboard, a 12-core/24-thread Xeon for $30 on ebay. So even with adding RAM, Hard drives, new video…

Thank you for sharing that. I think this is a particularly good callout: "which has been absolutely worth it considering I've made 250x that per day when I use it for work."

I think that's called "investment" :) If "loving" your computer makes you even 1% more productive and raises your income 1% that's amazing. Similarly, I've come around on my previously penny-pinching ways around things that matter.

Eg I pay for Peloton. Yes, I could workout in a cheaper way, but the reality is (turns out) that I am much more likely to work out if I can roll out of bed and climb onto the bike in my underwear and tune in to one of my favorite instructors. Ditto on buying a large car - I want my wife's life to be as easy as possible so while I am sure we "could" get away with a Toyota corolla, I don't want her miserable every time she gets the kids into their seats or the stroller into the trunk.

These things are worth it because they get me more of what I care about: fitness, family happiness, etc.

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

#48

Post by kepano »

djhworld wrote: post #38

It also depends on the category of the product and what 'value' you hope to get from it. For example recently I purchased a Lego set, the biggest one I've ever purchased and it cost £565 (titanic) which is the most amount of money I've ever spent on what is essentially a display piece once built. However I enjoy the process of building Lego and this set is going to take me months to build, just devoting an hour or tw…

The HN title cuts off the other heuristics that are described:

> Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use. Sometimes I consider other priorities such as cost per smile, cost per thrill, cost per externality, and cost per lesson.

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

#49

Post by [deleted] »

Anderkent wrote: post #28
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

[deleted]

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

#50

Post by leetcrew »

Anderkent wrote: post #28
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

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.

Post reply on HN