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

Buy well, buy once

fellow.ventures

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 392 posts

Re: Buy well, buy once

#251

Post by nerdchum »

sanderjd wrote: post #242
CPLX wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty on the nose. I think even more accurate is that quality/longevity and price are almost completely decoupled. Spending more doesn’t guarantee higher quality it mostly gets you exceptional graphic design and deftly nested packaging that makes you feel good when you open it. But it’s not like all the cheap stuff is better. A Rolex is an incredible engineering marvel and is in fact very high quality and durable. S…

The area in which this drives me the craziest is furniture. I have no idea how to find high quality durable furniture. Price signals definitely aren't it, but I have no idea what signals I can look for, or where to go to find them.

Furniture is INSANE!

Ive never felt like I was in a more skeezy situation than mattress shopping.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#252

Post by noisy_boy »

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #185
mattmanser wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally don't favour cheap over longevity, and I don't really believe most consumer do either. The problem is that it has become increasingly difficult to discern if something will last. An expensive product, from what was a trusted brand, can be just as short lived as a cheap one these days. Cost does not always reflect quality. And brands that build long-lived products struggle as they don't have the repeat cu…

> And brands that build long-lived products struggle as they don't have the repeat customers of products that are good I know of a company that was a national leader in a certain kind of industrial equipment. Now that the industry isn't expanding in this country, the market is saturated and they can't sell anything because what they sold decades ago was designed for excellence and just won't die. Nearly all business…

Well, if their brand is that strong, that itself allows them to start making something else - you know, "from the makers of "; won't need much brand building and convincing because people are still eating the pudding containing the proof.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#253

Post by ericpauley »

nerdchum wrote: post #214

I think a lot of times this philosophy is just rich people justifying paying a lot for high status items. a pair of Crocs is 50 bucks and that's one of the highest quality pairs of shoes you'll buy for the price. you could buy 10 pairs of Crocs for a $500 pair of Alden's so even if the crocs only lasted a year, it would take a decade to recoup the investment on the Alden's. but the crocs don't have the same status th…

Completely agree. People love to tout the boots theory but the reality is that the people who claim this are often far beyond the point of optimal cost. Mass manufacturing inherently allows for better value to be delivered at greater scale, which tends to occur at the lower end of the price range. Beyond a certain point you're paying for prestige rather than lifespan.

I've had the same wallet for 10 years. It cost me $16 and was made from recycled leather scraps (thanks, Phil's wallets!). I plan to use it at least another 10 years. Will the $115 wallet pushed in this article really last 7x longer than my scrap wallet? I doubt it.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#254

Post by Veen »

nerdchum wrote: post #214

I think a lot of times this philosophy is just rich people justifying paying a lot for high status items. a pair of Crocs is 50 bucks and that's one of the highest quality pairs of shoes you'll buy for the price. you could buy 10 pairs of Crocs for a $500 pair of Alden's so even if the crocs only lasted a year, it would take a decade to recoup the investment on the Alden's. but the crocs don't have the same status th…

But "buying for quality" and "buying for status" are different, and I don't think rich people conflate the two (or the people here). The person buying Louis Vuitton luggage (or whatever rich people buy these days) knows they are buying it for status among their similarly wealthy friends. Although, you also get counter-signaling among "old money" types, where it's seen as déclassé to try too hard; they wouldn't be seen dead with something as vulgar as Louis Vuitton luggage.

However, I don't think this conversation is about them.

The smart middle class family buys the best they can afford given their budget, but the less-smart family buys the cheapest 'Buy well, buy once' encourages the first approach.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#255

Post by emodendroket »

nicbou wrote: post #206
emodendroket wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds kind of woo, but I tried the Konmari method and it really was helpful without being overly prescriptive. It definitely felt good to get rid of a lot of that stuff. Though there are a couple that I'd probably take back if I could do it over.

It's a great technique, but I'd rather focus on reducing purchases instead of getting rid of purchased stuff. The environmental damage is already done, unless it finds a second user. I like that Konmari can also apply to obligations and how you allocate your time. Thats the premise of a book: the life-changing magic of not giving a f**.

Part of the promise of the book is that going through the process once will change how you shop as you develop your sense for which things you really want to have around.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#256

Post by barbariangrunge »

lumb63 wrote: post #244
nerdchum wrote: post #214

I think a lot of times this philosophy is just rich people justifying paying a lot for high status items. a pair of Crocs is 50 bucks and that's one of the highest quality pairs of shoes you'll buy for the price. you could buy 10 pairs of Crocs for a $500 pair of Alden's so even if the crocs only lasted a year, it would take a decade to recoup the investment on the Alden's. but the crocs don't have the same status th…

This isn’t a totally fair comparison. When people buy shoes, their criteria isn’t normally as low as “covers my feet”. They have a specific style they want, a specific material, and will shop amongst shoes that fit that description. Crocs and dress shoes are not interchangeable to a lot of people. A better comparison is to look at, for instance, Johnston and Murphy vs. Alden. Then you get a more fair comparison. For…

My criteria is maybe less fancy than other people. Covers my feet + isn’t embarrassing + durable + potential arch support + cheap.

I’ve never found shoes that meet all those criteria. I’ve actually never found any shoes, ever, that were even durable or had usable arch support. So cheap + not embarrassing is pretty much the bar to cross

But I learned recently that crocks have amazing arch support!

Re: Buy well, buy once

#257

Post by tharkun__ »

safety1st wrote: post #186
pfannkuchen wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I try to do this, I inevitably settle on wearing one of the three 100% of the time. How do you manage it?

I go by function. A pair of everyday shoes for regular days, a pair of cross-trainers for gym days, and an expensive pair of boots for days when I get dressed up.

Im finding out that the way I was brought up is not universal. I was always taught that you have to alternate shoes every day to make them last longer, because feet sweat too. That's why expensive dress shoes have shoe trees (not just to hold the shape better).

So two pairs of shoes for the office so they always have a full day to dry out etc. Now with WFH that sort of goes out the window as I don't wear shoes for as long any more.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#258

Post by frutiger »

sanderjd wrote: post #242
CPLX wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty on the nose. I think even more accurate is that quality/longevity and price are almost completely decoupled. Spending more doesn’t guarantee higher quality it mostly gets you exceptional graphic design and deftly nested packaging that makes you feel good when you open it. But it’s not like all the cheap stuff is better. A Rolex is an incredible engineering marvel and is in fact very high quality and durable. S…

The area in which this drives me the craziest is furniture. I have no idea how to find high quality durable furniture. Price signals definitely aren't it, but I have no idea what signals I can look for, or where to go to find them.

Design Within Reach, Herman Miller, Room & Board, Blu Dot, ...

Re: Buy well, buy once

#259

Post by ticviking »

sanderjd wrote: post #242
CPLX wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty on the nose. I think even more accurate is that quality/longevity and price are almost completely decoupled. Spending more doesn’t guarantee higher quality it mostly gets you exceptional graphic design and deftly nested packaging that makes you feel good when you open it. But it’s not like all the cheap stuff is better. A Rolex is an incredible engineering marvel and is in fact very high quality and durable. S…

The area in which this drives me the craziest is furniture. I have no idea how to find high quality durable furniture. Price signals definitely aren't it, but I have no idea what signals I can look for, or where to go to find them.

You have to learn enough about how they are built and then haunt local consignment shops for good finds.

It’s taken my wife and I years to slowly get pieces that will last the rest of our life.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#260

Post by hrdwdmrbl »

mberning wrote: post #56

In a way I admire committed minimalists. But I often wonder what their long term lifestyle is like. Surely many of them are single (or they only count the items which are solely theirs). They surely rent at a higher rate than own property. They surely own vehicles at a lower rate. And so on. I just get this picture of a person in an urban area, living alone in a studio apartment, dependent upon everyone else for basi…

Yeah that is kind of me. I like it though
Post reply on HN