Live data from Hacker News

Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

terrypratchett.com

11–20 of 71 posts

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#11
The boots theory is a concrete way of expressing the risk of ruin, which is the principle advantage of wealth (though our society has layered on many others): the rich can afford to take more risk, and consequently enjoy more reward. A poor person who buys the $50 boots has a much higher risk of coming up short for something else, and that lapse may have disproportionate consequences. So they go for the cheap boots, which end up costing them more in the long run, trapping them in an endless cycle.

Another way to consider it is through the lens of meritocracy. Consider two poker players of equal skill. Have them play each other until one has lost everything. Run this competition over and over, starting each player with a random stack. Over many trials, the player starting with the bigger stack will win in proportion to the ratio of their stack to their opponent's. Given a large enough ratio, this wealth advantage can begin to overcome greater and greater advantages in skill on the part of their opponent.

In the US, the ratio of the wealth of the top 10% to the wealth of the median has risen from 5.8x in 1963 to nearly 10x in 2022. In the same period, the ratio of the top 1% to the median has risen from 35x to 70x. And the effective advantage is probably much higher, as this calculation does not take into account liquidity: most of a median family's wealth is in their family home.

https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#12
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.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#13

Its a fun thought exercise, but I've found the opposite to be true in most cases. More expensive clothes are usually less durable (depending on the brand). The same goes for appliances, and cars, and phones, and etc. The cheap designs are simple and robust and the expensive designs add complexity and features. In reality I think there are more forces extracting money from the wealthy and their effete needs. My exampl…

I think you're right on the luxury brands being less durable.

To address the second airplane example, we really have to go through all that you're buying. Namely: more leg space, faster airport queue processing, more luggage, better in-flight service. Do I value these at 3x the cost? Maybe yes.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#14

I love when this comes up and also I see it play out in my life, where my GF prefers fast fashion whereas I buy something from brands I like and I wear it for long (some of the clothes in my wardrobe have been there for 12+ years.. I feel old.) Also Sir Terry Pratchett is a gem of an author and you should read all of his books. I have read through maybe 25% of Discworld and it's the funniest fantasy series ever.

I wanted to like Discworld and read a couple of the books but they're frankly not funny.

You must have had a very good surgeon then! Congrats!

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#15

Man, part of me wishes the theory were still true. So many products you spent good coin on and then later find out are in fact no better than the cheap stuff (or worse, literally just rebadged Alibaba products!).

This is what happens when vendors recognize the boots theory and build it in to their approach. If “more expensive is better,” just price the same item into a higher price bracket and pocket the difference. If you want to be fancy, rebadge it a bit.

I’m just amazed that they don’t even bother to use alternate product pictures.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#16

Its a fun thought exercise, but I've found the opposite to be true in most cases. More expensive clothes are usually less durable (depending on the brand). The same goes for appliances, and cars, and phones, and etc. The cheap designs are simple and robust and the expensive designs add complexity and features. In reality I think there are more forces extracting money from the wealthy and their effete needs. My exampl…

I think you're right on the luxury brands being less durable. To address the second airplane example, we really have to go through all that you're buying. Namely: more leg space, faster airport queue processing, more luggage, better in-flight service. Do I value these at 3x the cost? Maybe yes.

Both me and the richest person on the flight are going to the same destination. They're not getting there any faster or safer. Everything else is a fleeting luxury.

Not saying it's a bad to spend money on temporary comfort, but it's the opposite of the Vimes boot problem.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#17

Its a fun thought exercise, but I've found the opposite to be true in most cases. More expensive clothes are usually less durable (depending on the brand). The same goes for appliances, and cars, and phones, and etc. The cheap designs are simple and robust and the expensive designs add complexity and features. In reality I think there are more forces extracting money from the wealthy and their effete needs. My exampl…

> The first class passengers are effectively paying 3x as much for the same outcome

Not the same outcome. They show up at their destinations fresh from a good night's sleep, having showered at the lounge. Their back doesn't hurt from trying to sleep upright in a tiny seat or schlepping a heavy rucksack.

If you have enough money you are ok with paying to get those outcomes.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#18
Re-reading Discworld books today demonstrates how timeless they are. Stories Terry wrote in the 1980s still feel like biting satire against the modern world today.

The books also get better as I get older - I read them first as a teenager and many of the deeper ideas about the human condition went straight over my head.

The way the cult leader in Guards! Guards! manipulates his followers, to give just one example.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#19

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.

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)

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#20

Man, part of me wishes the theory were still true. So many products you spent good coin on and then later find out are in fact no better than the cheap stuff (or worse, literally just rebadged Alibaba products!).

This is part of why I now tend to go for the cheapest. I do a bit of research of course, but most goods have been commodified (and corners cut). Nowadays the only guarantee you have when paying more is that you have less money in your wallet.
Post reply on HN