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

371–380 of 392 posts

Re: Buy well, buy once

#371

Post by guidoism »

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…

A Rolex still requires very expensive maintenance every couple years (hundreds of dollars) just to do basic timekeeping. Absurdly, an Apple Watch upgraded every 4 years is probably cheaper to maintain. A high quality quartz is probably the financially smart option.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#372

Post by lobocinza »

bthrn wrote: post #296
ericpauley wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 consid…

> It's a bit unfortunate that some things like that are considered a luxury these days.

Those always were a luxury. Before mass production most people just couldn't afford to have things as we do nowadays.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#373

Post by lobocinza »

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…

The other end of this is companies manufacturing products that are questionably eco-friendly and certainly less durable leading to a worse off situation to everyone except them.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#374

Post by helmholtz »

nerdchum wrote: post #361
helmholtz wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think we need to stop contriving obviously skewed examples like Aldens vs Crocs. Boots vs shitty holey rubber sandals isn't a good comparison. Maybe compare backpack, or suits, or something along those lines.

"obvioudly skewed" how? Its pretty much the perfect example imo

Aldens vs cheapo 20 dollar amazon boots would be a better comparison. You ain't wearing Crocs with a suit my man.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#375

Post by comfypotato »

nerdchum wrote: post #362
comfypotato wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crocs are not utilitarian (no structure or support for physical activity) and they aren’t appropriate in the wider spectrum a nice pair of shoes are. I settled on some classic Vans after a deep internet dive signaled that they’re the most popular among homeless people for being durable and comfortable without being too expensive. They look fine, and I have a lot of freedom regarding when to replace them. I’m very hap…

Every pair of vans I bought fell apart in a year. I think they used to be quality back in the day before they got popular and shipped their manufacturing overseas. I've never seen a homeless person in vans but that's just me.

The Sk8 Hi, or whatever it is, is the only pair of shoes I wear aside from some rain boots. They show little sign of wear after two years. I’ve also had an interesting and and slightly uncomfortable interaction with a homeless person saying “nice old school kicks” and giving me a high five. So my anecdotal data definitely holds up. Perhaps it’s the model. I also have a musician friend who’s been wearing the same pair of the same model for 10 years including a tour.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#376

Post by aeternum »

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.

This however is balanced by material quality. Rolls Royce can use more expensive alloys and premium leather that do not degrade as quickly and still have plenty of margin.

Corolla designers are highly constrained by cost.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#377

Post by SaintSeiya »

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 a 1000 times. Those kind of articles are just rich people showing off, seeking attention, they must have indeed a miserably or fake life to even think that other cares about the brand of their shoes or mattresses (except other equally unhappy people. A shoe is a shoe, a mattress is a mattress, a sofa is a sofa. There's more important things in life that those details.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#378

Post by crimsontech »

nerdchum wrote: post #362
comfypotato wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crocs are not utilitarian (no structure or support for physical activity) and they aren’t appropriate in the wider spectrum a nice pair of shoes are. I settled on some classic Vans after a deep internet dive signaled that they’re the most popular among homeless people for being durable and comfortable without being too expensive. They look fine, and I have a lot of freedom regarding when to replace them. I’m very hap…

Every pair of vans I bought fell apart in a year. I think they used to be quality back in the day before they got popular and shipped their manufacturing overseas. I've never seen a homeless person in vans but that's just me.

This even happens with expensive shoe brands. Loakes and Church’s are two such brands of shoes and Danner boots used to be decent too.

Small shoe makers get a good reputation for quality then can’t keep up with demand and sell or partner with huge fashion companies which cut costs and offshore manufacturing while keeping the price high.

Enshitification for shoes I guess.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#379

Post by mym1990 »

nebula8804 wrote: post #73
dublinben wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m fond of the conspiracy theory that the rise of minimalism is actually propaganda to placate Millennials who can’t afford the same level of material comfort as their parents and other earlier generations enjoyed.

What if its just Millennials discovering it own their own as a result of their reduced standard of living? The powers that be would want maximum consumption and minimalism goes against that no? Same probably goes for "vanlife". It is millennials just realizing they cant afford a home ever and so they improvise with what they can resource.

Vanlife is still very costly if you try to maintain any kinds of creature comforts. I think it is more so millennials seeing the romanticized side of it on social media, and then finding out its actually a lot of work and you are one break down from being literally homeless.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#380

Post by mym1990 »

Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #228
nebula8804 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if its just Millennials discovering it own their own as a result of their reduced standard of living? The powers that be would want maximum consumption and minimalism goes against that no? Same probably goes for "vanlife". It is millennials just realizing they cant afford a home ever and so they improvise with what they can resource.

Where have you been? TPTB are desperately trying to make you poorer by banning cars, banning air travel, banning meat, and inflating the fuck out of our money.

Oof, was really hoping for a /s at the end of this one.
Post reply on HN