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

Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

terrypratchett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#51

Post by Nasrudith »

skybrian wrote: post #36
devilbunny wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With luxury brands, it depends on what you buy. My mother-in-law still owns and uses 1970s-vintage Louis Vuitton handbags. They are built to last. A hand-stitched leather suitcase is expensive. It will also last until your grandchildren are dead.

If it was made before suitcases commonly had wheels, you’re still going to want to replace it. The grandkids (if there are any) won’t want it.

The funny thing is that from what I heard with the antiques markets (which is admittedly possibly a decade or so old) it is antique luggage of all things which is 'in' and antique furniture which is out relatively speaking to the past.

The grandkids not wanting it may still apply if they are still minors, there would be plenty of time for tastes to shift again.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#52

Post by hatsix »

_fat_santa wrote: post #23
AussieWog93 wrote: post #3

Man, part of me wishes the theory were still true. So many products you spent good coin on and then later find out are in fact no better than the cheap stuff (or worse, literally just rebadged Alibaba products!).

I would say this still holds true but not for singular products. Take Costco for example, long term you save money and you get high quality products. But that comes at the cost of having to spend quite a bit up front to buy in bulk. Not to mention it also assumes you have the space to store those products.

Costco has a double threat going on... bulk discounts plus a great warranty. because they have so few skus, they can afford to give each product more attention than any other Brick & Mortar store, to say nothing about Amazon and Etsy

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#53

Post by lotsofpulp »

hatsix wrote: post #52
_fat_santa wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say this still holds true but not for singular products. Take Costco for example, long term you save money and you get high quality products. But that comes at the cost of having to spend quite a bit up front to buy in bulk. Not to mention it also assumes you have the space to store those products.

Costco has a double threat going on... bulk discounts plus a great warranty. because they have so few skus, they can afford to give each product more attention than any other Brick & Mortar store, to say nothing about Amazon and Etsy

That is the main reason I buy from Costco without hesitation. I know that if I got ripped off by a subpar good, I can get my money back. But that rarely happens.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#54

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

happytoexplain wrote: post #10
AussieWog93 wrote: post #3

Man, part of me wishes the theory were still true. So many products you spent good coin on and then later find out are in fact no better than the cheap stuff (or worse, literally just rebadged Alibaba products!).

Yeah, I think about this a lot. I currently need a vanity base. There are no businesses doing this within 100 miles of me, as far as I can tell using the information avenues available to me. So I'm shopping semi-identical jpgs with some filters on untrustworthy metadata from Wayfair, Home Depot, Lowes... They're all selling the exact same things. Does it even matter if I pay $200 vs $2000 on these sites? I can't even…

> What about the "craftsmen" on Etsy? Are they even real?

Not anymore. The real craftspeople were booted from the site, by the cheap knockoff-spewers.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#55

Post by triceratops »

skybrian wrote: post #33
triceratops wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first class passengers are effectively paying 3x as much for the same outcome Not the same outcome. They show up at their destinations fresh from a good night's sleep, having showered at the lounge. Their back doesn't hurt from trying to sleep upright in a tiny seat or schlepping a heavy rucksack. If you have enough money you are ok with paying to get those outcomes.

For very long international flights I could see it, but I also see people in the first class seats on shorter flights where it’s hardly worth it. (I assume at least some of them are upgrades.) Also, checking a bag is not expensive.

I assume that many/most people flying business or first class on shorter flights are either flying for business or churning.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#56

Post by triceratops »

HFguy wrote: post #49
triceratops wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first class passengers are effectively paying 3x as much for the same outcome Not the same outcome. They show up at their destinations fresh from a good night's sleep, having showered at the lounge. Their back doesn't hurt from trying to sleep upright in a tiny seat or schlepping a heavy rucksack. If you have enough money you are ok with paying to get those outcomes.

Most of first class is not paying their own money for those flights.

Agreed. But their employers still see value in paying for them. Unless you're referring to credit card churners.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#57

Post by triceratops »

legitster wrote: post #16
ArcHound wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right on the luxury brands being less durable. To address the second airplane example, we really have to go through all that you're buying. Namely: more leg space, faster airport queue processing, more luggage, better in-flight service. Do I value these at 3x the cost? Maybe yes.

Both me and the richest person on the flight are going to the same destination. They're not getting there any faster or safer. Everything else is a fleeting luxury. Not saying it's a bad to spend money on temporary comfort, but it's the opposite of the Vimes boot problem.

> Not saying it's a bad to spend money on temporary comfort, but it's the opposite of the Vimes boot problem.

It's true that comfort isn't a permanent good you own a la Vimes. But better comfort is a decidedly different outcome and you argued that it wasn't.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#58

Post by triceratops »

fmx wrote: post #21
legitster wrote: post #8

Its a fun thought exercise, but I've found the opposite to be true in most cases. More expensive clothes are usually less durable (depending on the brand). The same goes for appliances, and cars, and phones, and etc. The cheap designs are simple and robust and the expensive designs add complexity and features. In reality I think there are more forces extracting money from the wealthy and their effete needs. My exampl…

> The first class passengers are effectively paying 3x as much 3x? If only! If we're talking international first class (not US domestic "first"), it's typically 10-12x the price of economy.

Yeah 3x would be a bargain.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#59

Post by floren »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #37
entuno wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expensive doesn't guarantee high quality, but very cheap almost always means low quality. A £200 pair of boots might be great and last for a decade, or might be overpriced and fall apart after six months. But a £5 pair are definitely going to be crap.

Which is why it makes sense to buy the 5 pound shoes 40 times if they last at least 3 months. Except for running shoes, I just get the Costco ones for $20 to $30 and toss them in 6 to 12 months.

But then you're constantly either breaking in a new pair, or dealing with a pair that's falling apart, and you're lucky to get 1 month of good comfortable wear out of those cheap shoes. And you have to go buy them every three months, and shoe models change constantly so you have to find the current cheap pair that actually fits you.

Re: Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness (2022)

#60

Post by dlcarrier »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #3

Man, part of me wishes the theory were still true. So many products you spent good coin on and then later find out are in fact no better than the cheap stuff (or worse, literally just rebadged Alibaba products!).

It's never been the case that more expensive products are better, despite better products being more expensive.

Quality isn't the only reason something may be expensive, and costly signaling will always dominate, whether or not the products are of high quality.

Silver isn't a better material for making jewelry than stainless steel; if anything, it's worse. Jewelry's purpose is to show that the owner doesn't care about costs, but it's not the only way. Buying needlessly expensive technology works too, like cars and computers and phones, and the more expensive ones are not known for lasting long, and they are used for much shorter period of time than a cheap version of the same, despite the cheap one being hardier and longer lasting.

Post reply on HN