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

Pay Too Much for everything

allentucker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 170 posts

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#141

Post by thesteamboat »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #133
roc wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are a good example of why "built to last" doesn't make universal sense. We don't make trucks like we did 15 years ago, because we know what happens to the human body inside a rigid metal shell during a collision. We know that we can design engines and transmissions that will keep you on the road better, keep you out of more accidents and at least halve your fuel bill. And these gains will trivially outweigh the…

you can save so much more money in the interim that you'll still be ahead after you replace it Are you seriously saying that the price of e.g., a new $1000 refrigerator + the cost of running it for 10 years is going to be less than the cost of running an existing 10 year-old model? Now, I have to admit that I haven't done the math (beyond a back of the envelope estimate), but I'm having a hard time believing that it'…

In order to be cost efficient tradeoff, a new refrigerator should save 100 bucks a year on the electricity bill, or roughly 8 bucks a month.

This site (http://www.refrigeratorefficiency.com/efficiency-matters/ref...) seems to think that is plausible. > Consider Upgrading > > Consider replacing refrigerators that are more than 10 years old. The efficiency of modern refrigerators can be over 40% greater than older models. This can save $15 per month on your electric bill.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#142

Post by pbreit »

latch wrote: post #74
mayneack wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a personal anecdote: when I eventually stopped growing taller (~19), I started purchasing clothing and outdoor gear that was a step up from the quality of when I knew that I'd grow out of things. While not universal, I did notice a definite uptick in the durability and comfort of most things. It's obviously possible that this was a placebo effect or maybe I'm nicer to my gear now, but I've certainly been getting m…

The placebo effect appears to be massive, at least where it's been studied (wine, for example). I'm happy to admit that, as a general rule ( cough jaguar cough ), higher prices indicate better quality, I just don't think it translates into better value (again, as a general rule). Sure, highly functional things, like shoes and a bed, probably warrant paying more even though the value isn't proportional. Paying 50% mor…

Totally disagree about "jeans, kitchenware, cars, food, electronics". All of those benefit greatly by quality (and thus cost). Medecine is a special case since so much cost goes into development (sorry, I don't believe you on the bulk of it being marketing).

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#143

Post by glanch »

roc wrote: post #108
freehunter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good point about reliability not being the only factor in buying a car. I drive a Toyota 4Runner, which has a 4-star safety rating. It's from years before pedestrian safety laws, so the pedestrian safety rating is low, but the passenger safety rating is quite good. 20mpg is still hard to get from a V-6 truck engine these days. The only modern safety features I wish I had are hill start assist and traction/stability…

> "20mpg is still hard to get from a V-6 truck engine these days." True enough. But 4 cylinder engines are turning out 150hp and 3500 pounds of towing capacity these days. So the V-6, in and of itself, may not be an appropriate requirement. As to the market: perhaps. I'm not saying it's impossible to find a modern middle-ground. But I don't know how many people even want to lift their hood these days. This past model…

> This past model year it's already started to become somewhat common for commuter cars to ditch the spare tire.

I... don't want to believe this. Source?

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#144

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

latch wrote: post #14

I don't agree with most of this. The idea that price equals quality has long been used by merchants to extract money from consumers, not extend value. Sure it's true of some products and some companies, but overall I'd argue that at best, more expensive things aren't close to being relatively better - by any meaningful measure. A $300 meal isn't 10x better - in terms of taste (subjective obviously) or nutrition - as…

Be careful with that. Your "practical" reasons are not the same as everyone else's. For a financial consultant, a "practical reason" for owning a Mercedes is that it implies the owner is successful. That's exactly what you want your financial consultant to signal. From his perspective, he may be happy with the Focus, but knows that he won't get the same type of customers if they see him driving it.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#145

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #22

The problem with this "buy for life" stuff is that how do you determine what is really a "buy for life" product rather than just an over-priced "brand?" For example, I could go out and buy a $200 pair of sunglasses but depending on where I buy them they can either be poor quality (e.g. fashion brands, sunglass hut, etc) or exceptional (e.g. fishing shops, sailing suppliers, workman-glasses, etc). You would expect rev…

You answered your own question: given a choice, if you can buy from the supplier that sells to industrial/commercial users, the quality will usually be better.

e.g., I buy my T-Shirts from Tractor Supply. They are cheaper, much thicker and last longer than the ones I bought from American Apparel. Farmers are harder on clothing than the average urban dweller, I'm guessing.

The tools I buy from McMaster-Carr or Fastenal may cost the same or slightly more than the tools (often the same brands) from Home Depot or the local hardware store, but they are much better quality.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#146

Post by dllthomas »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #133
roc wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are a good example of why "built to last" doesn't make universal sense. We don't make trucks like we did 15 years ago, because we know what happens to the human body inside a rigid metal shell during a collision. We know that we can design engines and transmissions that will keep you on the road better, keep you out of more accidents and at least halve your fuel bill. And these gains will trivially outweigh the…

you can save so much more money in the interim that you'll still be ahead after you replace it Are you seriously saying that the price of e.g., a new $1000 refrigerator + the cost of running it for 10 years is going to be less than the cost of running an existing 10 year-old model? Now, I have to admit that I haven't done the math (beyond a back of the envelope estimate), but I'm having a hard time believing that it'…

Ten year old, probably not. 30 year old, and it becomes possible - some of those (per http://appliancecalculator.stanford.edu) wind up using over 2000 kWh/yr. Of course, if the 10 year old one is in not-great repair, that probably increases its energy use (think a poor seal, funky motor, clogged whatever), and leaving it be might well cost more than replacing, and the real question being between replacing and repairing.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#147

Post by efa »

latch wrote: post #14

I don't agree with most of this. The idea that price equals quality has long been used by merchants to extract money from consumers, not extend value. Sure it's true of some products and some companies, but overall I'd argue that at best, more expensive things aren't close to being relatively better - by any meaningful measure. A $300 meal isn't 10x better - in terms of taste (subjective obviously) or nutrition - as…

There is definitely some items where the article's argument holds true. Furniture is definitely one. I can buy a Stickley table (very expensive) and my great grandkids will be using it in their home. Clothing is another. Cheap clothing degrades very quickly where quality items can last many years.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#148

Post by Havoc »

I associate old with quality more than price.

e.g. My dad has 2 Bosch drills ( http://i.imgur.com/aCkaq.jpg ). Roughly 20 years old. When you hold them in your hand you just know that it'll last another 40 years. As a result I have a really difficult time taking any of the modern drills seriously.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#149

Post by roc »

thwest wrote: post #131
roc wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are a good example of why "built to last" doesn't make universal sense. We don't make trucks like we did 15 years ago, because we know what happens to the human body inside a rigid metal shell during a collision. We know that we can design engines and transmissions that will keep you on the road better, keep you out of more accidents and at least halve your fuel bill. And these gains will trivially outweigh the…

Where do you get your information regarding the environmental costs of manufacturing and disposal of vehicles and large appliances so that you can make this judgement?

Ideally, the environmental costs of manufacture are built into the list price. And the costs of disposal/recycling are offset by the consumer-facing price of disposal and from the value of any recovered materials.

The degree to which those two things isn't true is well outside the capability of an individual market participant. I'm at the mercy of intermediaries to expose failures in this regard.

And holding onto old products isn't much better in that regard, as I also have incomplete information on where those old parts are going, where the new ones came from, what they were made of, what hidden costs are buried in the repair business' books, etc. To say nothing of issues such as extending the life of products that rely on now-banned chemicals. Leaded paints, refrigerants like Freon, etc.

Re: Pay Too Much for everything

#150

Post by pbhjpbhj »

undergroundhero wrote: post #127
schiffern wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the author is arguing that you should use "expensive" as a heuristic (instead of "cheap"). wccrawford is arguing that quality is orthogonal to price.

No, he's not. This doesn’t always work. Sometimes a cheaper product is actually better. But consider removing price as the default decision criteria. He's advising you to stop buying the cheapest available, not to buy the most expensive available.

Your last sentence contradicts 2 out of 3 of those you quote.

He says sometimes a cheaper product is better, you say he's telling us not to buy the cheapest [but he said it could be better].

He says remove price as the main criteria, you say use price as the main criteria to rule out the cheapest products.

Post reply on HN