Buy well, buy once

Post by sanderjd » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 2:56 PM UTC

asddubs wrote: post #108

metadat wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you haven't already, please consult a professional. Do yourself the favor, you're worth it. Edit: @asddubs: thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, though you never know what reality faces the person on the other end of a link, which is why I still try. Sometimes you might be surprised. And thank you for helping get my karma back to an even number, all is well again. Your friendly friend, MD.

seems like a useless piece of advice to give to someone with that level of awareness about it.

Post by schwartzworld » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 3:01 PM UTC

barbariangrunge wrote: post #256

lumb63 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Post by mathgeek » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 3:02 PM UTC

benmanns wrote: post #238

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…

$50/$500 is a 10%/year yield, which is hard come by in any guaranteed investment. The Crocs will likely have no retained value, while the $500 shoes may be worth something after 10 years. However, that ignores the cost of maintaining a nice pair of shoes (both money and time) as one needs to clean, polish, and resole every so often. You might want shoes in two or three colors/styles, which would make the Crocs last 2…

Post by CPLX » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 3:04 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #264

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…

> Corolla etc. Fun way to think about it (borrowed from James May): A Toyota Corolla is higher quality than a Rolls Royce. Because Toyota makes 10,000,000 vehicles per year. Rolls makes only 6,000. Meaning Toyota is better at making cars just by virtue of having 4 orders of magnitude more practice.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 3:06 PM UTC

schwartzworld wrote: post #263

barbariangrunge wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Hiking shoes are usually pretty durable and supportive.