Buy well, buy once • Hacker News Board

Re: Buy well, buy once

#291

Post by bthrn » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 4:12 PM UTC

ericpauley wrote: post #253

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…

It really depends what you mean by “optimal cost” and “better value”. For example, if you want something that’s handcrafted rather than made in a factory on the other side of the world, you have to pay for the skills and labor that go into that. Depending on what it is, it might not last longer - but could be a better value in other respects than simply cost. Not everything has to be about making widgets for the lowest amount of money possible.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#292

Post by LargeDiggerNick » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 4:13 PM UTC

silverlake wrote: post #272

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…

From the documentary Idiocracy: Idiocracy director Mike Judge revealed that they went with Crocs both because they were cheap and that "no one would ever wear them." To the surprise of Judge and Idiocracy's wardrobe department, by the time the film came out after a delay, Crocs were all over the place.” In fact you could save more money by wrapping your feet in used burlap sacks. Just need to be creative.

Right because Hollywood is great to look to for advice on how to buy low cost high quality items....

Re: Buy well, buy once

#293

Post by waboremo » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

lghh wrote: post #262

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…

For the shoes example, there's also value in reducing waste. 10 pairs of rubber Crocs that you throw out every year create much more waste than 1 pair of 500 dollar leather boots that can be repaired and are much more environmentally friendly when they are eventually disposed of. 100% agree about the Corolla though.

I'm not so sure about this comparison even. There are multiple factors at play that you're just assuming, that the $500 leather boots are going to be worn for 10 years to be equivalent to the crocs, but I'm not sure that's the norm. Excluding those who have the means easily for $500 leather boots, who likely will just buy more of them to rotate (thus creating waste). Surely someone who spends $500 on leather boots is also going to care about their status, and therefore might get them repaired far more often.

These repairs, while likely less wasteful than full-on recycling, have costs attributed to them. It costs to produce the goods required to repair. These goods often aren't super sustainable products either. With these factors in mind, is the comparison equal? Can we absolutely stand by the idea that paying for $500 leather boots will be better for the environment and you for 10 years?

Which is why when making these comparisons we should really get into the nitty gritty details, otherwise we're just handwaving a bunch of things and making assumptions to justify our position. By doing so, we'll be able to make better choices with proper information rather than shifting the burden of environmental impact elsewhere (to a repair shop or shoe makers, etc).

Note, this is not a defense of crocs vs leather boots. The product categories are just throwaway examples.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#294

Post by cookie_monsta » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #19

crazygringo wrote: post #7

> I even keep a record of all my worldly possessions in a visual catalogue spreadsheet on Airtable. 192 items at my last count. > I don't count hoodies, t-shirts, socks or usb cables but I really don't own many. I count a pair of shoes in a box as 1 item. Huh? Either you're counting things or you're not. Saying you own 192 items except for the 800 (?) you're not counting doesn't make a lot of sense. Why are shoes an…

I have two items because I count my house as one and my car as the other.

If you would like to reduce the number of possessions you own by 50% you could park your car in the garage. You're welcome.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#295

Post by ericpauley » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 4:36 PM UTC

bthrn wrote: post #291

ericpauley wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It really depends what you mean by “optimal cost” and “better value”. For example, if you want something that’s handcrafted rather than made in a factory on the other side of the world, you have to pay for the skills and labor that go into that. Depending on what it is, it might not last longer - but could be a better value in other respects than simply cost. Not everything has to be about making widgets for the lowe…

Of course. If you change the requirements the decision space shifts too. With respect to the boots theorem optimal cost is specifically focused on long-term concrete utility per dollar. Fwiw I'd (very loosely) classify the points you're bringing under "prestige".

Re: Buy well, buy once

#296

Post by bthrn » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 4:47 PM UTC

ericpauley wrote: post #295

bthrn wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends what you mean by “optimal cost” and “better value”. For example, if you want something that’s handcrafted rather than made in a factory on the other side of the world, you have to pay for the skills and labor that go into that. Depending on what it is, it might not last longer - but could be a better value in other respects than simply cost. Not everything has to be about making widgets for the lowe…

Of course. If you change the requirements the decision space shifts too. With respect to the boots theorem optimal cost is specifically focused on long-term concrete utility per dollar. Fwiw I'd ( very loosely ) classify the points you're bringing under "prestige".

> Fwiw I'd (very loosely) classify the points you're bringing under "prestige".

If I'd like my clothes made and sourced ethically, or if I want to support a local business that makes leather goods rather than buying mass-produced ones from somewhere else -- I wouldn't say those scenarios are motivated by prestige, but by valuing people and the work they do. It's a bit unfortunate that some things like that are considered a luxury these days.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#297

Post by cookie_monsta » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

markus_zhang wrote: post #201

Although the idea sounds intriguing, it doesn't really make a lot of sense in modern world. To "buy well", one has to understand every merchandise he is to make a purchase, but who has the capacity to do the research? And how do you do the research? For example, how do you know that two fridges, one $800 and one $2000, which one will last longer? Modern capitalism distorts price-quality equation so you cannot simply…

I don't think there are any universal roles. I would use a screwdriver maybe once or twice a year. Dollar shop ones seem fine for that

Re: Buy well, buy once

#298

Post by anonymouskimmer » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

ajnin wrote: post #236

Strange article. It is about an unrepairable pair of shoes that need to be recycled but its title is "Buy well, buy once". Not really the case, then ? Then he mentions that he has only 192 "worldly possessions". I'd like to see the actual list, because if it is accurate he mustn't have many forks or boxes of food in his cupboards. So he probably lives in a big city, eats out very often, takes public transportation, a…

> Then he mentions that he has only 192 "worldly possessions". I'd like to see the actual list,

Author didn't even seem to read the LA Times link he linked. I've personally got close to 5000 staples in a drawer. And I'm sure the author has some similar huge amount of an object. He's undoubtedly not counting his shoelaces as separate objects, where it seems likely the authors of the research on items in a household are.

From the LA Times piece:

> The average U.S. household has 300,000 things, from paper clips

emphasis, mine. A box of paper clips is considered multiple items.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#299

Post by msla » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #223

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…

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…

> A Rolex is an incredible engineering marvel and is in fact very high quality and durable.

But it's fundamentally worse at being a timepiece than a digital watch synchronized to an NTP time server.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#300

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 4:56 PM UTC

mailund wrote: post #281

abnry wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say they are negative, he said they are externalities. I've come to the same conclusion that minimalism is only supportable by other people not being minimalists. That's not necessarily a judgment on whether it is good or bad, but a statement of fact.

Maybe I can clarify, I felt there was an argument that living in a big city and using shared services (e.g. public transit) had a bigger impact than other alternatives. I was wondering what those alternatives that would be. I also feel it was implied that this impact was negative - or else it wouldn't be an argument against the post - but that's besides the point.

[deleted]