41–50 of 170 posts
A $5 on a 2000 is 0.25% and a $0.50 on $20 meal is 2.5%
I think what the article is trying to say is "Buy the best quality that you can afford". Unfortunately the Author has completely conflated Quality with Price. Higher price != Better Quality (not always anyway)
> This doesn’t always work. Sometimes a cheaper product is actually better. But consider removing price as the default decision criteria.
I think what the article is trying to say is "Buy the best quality that you can afford". Unfortunately the Author has completely conflated Quality with Price. Higher price != Better Quality (not always anyway)
And to be fair to the author, he mentions the same > This doesn’t always work. Sometimes a cheaper product is actually better. But consider removing price as the default decision criteria.
The price tag is rarely one of either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it just me, or do jeans seem very cheap in America? In Sweden, a pair of regular Levi's jeans might cost you 1000 SEK, which is about $136. The designer jeans might cost 1500+ SEK.
Levi's are what I'd call 'designer jeans' or maybe low end designer jeans. I mean, uh, I might be using that word incorrectly, but yeah, they are very expensive compared to off-brand jeans of similar quality. (I believe you can mostly evaluate the quality of jeans with your eyes and your hands.) I dono exactly how much I'd pay for them here, just, well, probably more than I'm willing to pay.
Macy's is probably the low end for actual designer stuff.
And yeah, jeans are cheaper in the U.S., Levi's go for ~$40-$60.
I think the example given, for a golfer, was a crafted/precious golf tee over a trashy electronic putting game. (Ignoring, of course, the fact that the tee might easily get lost.)
Also, the point missing is that you need to take care of your expensive gears. You need to put money into maintenance.
I think what the article is trying to say is "Buy the best quality that you can afford". Unfortunately the Author has completely conflated Quality with Price. Higher price != Better Quality (not always anyway)
And to be fair to the author, he mentions the same > This doesn’t always work. Sometimes a cheaper product is actually better. But consider removing price as the default decision criteria.
consider removing price as the default decision criteria
Most of the comments here (and parts of the original article) are elaborations on applying this principal. So price is not necessarily correlated with quality, but using price as a default decision criteria results in suboptimal outcomes (stuff that is not really "better" or consumers that are happier or otherwise benefited).
I definitely disagree. Maybe sometimes, paying twice as much gives you something that lasts ten times longer. Or maybe, you will pay five times as much, and get something that (hopefully) lasts a bit longer. I use a lot of earphones, and they tend to break quite fast. Once or twice, I decided to move away from the usual 15$ models and pay 60$ for better brands, with good reviews, and everything. Did they last longer…
Well, the $60 earphone actually comes with a 2 year warranty... whereas the $15 one does not.
> This is so weird to me. No one haggles over $5 on the price of a car, but it seems that everyone needs a tip calculator to determine if they should pay 21.50 or $22.00 for a meal. A $5 on a 2000 is 0.25% and a $0.50 on $20 meal is 2.5%