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

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

terrypratchett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

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

#31

Post by devilbunny »

ArcHound wrote: post #13
legitster wrote: post #8

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.

With luxury brands, it depends on what you buy. My mother-in-law still owns and uses 1970s-vintage Louis Vuitton handbags. They are built to last.

A hand-stitched leather suitcase is expensive. It will also last until your grandchildren are dead.

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

#32

Post by nothrabannosir »

legitster wrote: post #16
ArcHound wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you are over thirty and still this strong, then you have my respect and envy. I’m not even forty and even I would say a >7h economy flight (middle seat particularly) can take about two days to recover from.

How much money would you pay for two extra days of life? In the end, time itself is also “fleeting”, if you want to put it that way. But I sure as heck would fork over the money if I had it.

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

#33

Post by skybrian »

triceratops wrote: post #17
legitster wrote: post #8

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.

For very long international flights I could see it, but I also see people in the first class seats on shorter flights where it’s hardly worth it. (I assume at least some of them are upgrades.)

Also, checking a bag is not expensive.

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

#34

Post by devilbunny »

Planktonne wrote: post #22
try-working wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

He definitely grew significantly as a writer over time, and I would agree that some of his early work isn't particularly strong ( The Light Fantastic , for example, is relatively bog-standard comic fantasy without any of the depth his later work showed). If you start reading at the very beginning of the Discworld, you're slogging through the weaker stuff, and it's easy to get discouraged. A smoother path is to pick o…

My advice has always been to start with Small Gods. It is a standalone book that references but does not rely on any others, and is far enough into his career that it’s fair to say that if you don’t like it, you won’t like his work in general.

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

#36

Post by skybrian »

devilbunny wrote: post #31
ArcHound wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With luxury brands, it depends on what you buy. My mother-in-law still owns and uses 1970s-vintage Louis Vuitton handbags. They are built to last. A hand-stitched leather suitcase is expensive. It will also last until your grandchildren are dead.

If it was made before suitcases commonly had wheels, you’re still going to want to replace it. The grandkids (if there are any) won’t want it.

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

#37

Post by lotsofpulp »

entuno wrote: post #26
AussieWog93 wrote: post #3

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!).

Expensive doesn't guarantee high quality, but very cheap almost always means low quality. A £200 pair of boots might be great and last for a decade, or might be overpriced and fall apart after six months. But a £5 pair are definitely going to be crap.

Which is why it makes sense to buy the 5 pound shoes 40 times if they last at least 3 months. Except for running shoes, I just get the Costco ones for $20 to $30 and toss them in 6 to 12 months.

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

#38

Post by smallmancontrov »

shermantanktop wrote: post #15
AussieWog93 wrote: post #3

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.

The other year I bought some Bose exercise earbuds because the cheap ones weren't staying in my ears. They died, warranty replaced them, they died again, I opened them up and the circuit board wasn't coated or potted or anything! The cheap ones were! The premium brand was penny-pinching harder than the no-name brand!

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

#39

Post by randusername »

Personally I think it's an inverted bathtub curve.

Some things are so cheap you can't mess it up. Some things are well-made because the manufacturer made a series of quality-conscious decisions that really added up.

The trouble is the middle, where consumers pay the most attention to branding to make decisions. At the extremes, though, brands matter less.

The poor man wants boots. The rich man wants boots. The man in the middle wants Timberlands or Harley-Davidsons or Doc Martins or whatever.

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

#40

Post by tialaramex »

happytoexplain wrote: post #10
AussieWog93 wrote: post #3

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!).

Yeah, I think about this a lot. I currently need a vanity base. There are no businesses doing this within 100 miles of me, as far as I can tell using the information avenues available to me. So I'm shopping semi-identical jpgs with some filters on untrustworthy metadata from Wayfair, Home Depot, Lowes... They're all selling the exact same things. Does it even matter if I pay $200 vs $2000 on these sites? I can't even…

It is nice to be able to buy things from actual people who make them. Coincidentally the biggest outfit who make reproduction desks in this country (ie think what an English desk looks like 200 years ago, basically that, except made last month by experts and also the real ones didn't have a place to run cables tidily out of sight) is in my city, so I paid them to make my desk (well, not this desk, the one in my office when I'm doing actual work). Expensive but definitely worth it.

I don't know at all how sure I'd be that what I'd get was good quality if it was turning up from the far side of the country, let alone from China. I know anywhere could make high quality products, but it's much easier to trust it when you can walk there and go see them.

Post reply on HN