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

Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#61

Post by fn-mote »

david38 wrote: post #20
delgaudm wrote: post #3

A fine heuristic if you have enough money to make the choice in the first place. [1]Sam Vimes’s ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness, propounded in Men at Arms: "But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hun…

Buying cheap in the US is more often due to ignorance of the item, quality, and frequency of future use. Even most poor people, when educated about certain products can afford the quality item or change their habits to not need the item at all.

> ignorance of the item, quality, and frequency of future use

That is to say, formerly reliable companies outsourcing their production and selling their future good name for current profits.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#62

Post by cranky908canuck »

Anderkent wrote: post #28
delgaudm wrote: post #3

A fine heuristic if you have enough money to make the choice in the first place. [1]Sam Vimes’s ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness, propounded in Men at Arms: "But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hun…

The Boots theory is funny because it's absurd. It's not actually applicable to life in powerty. There is no class of items where if you are poor you spend more on it than when you're wealthy. People in poverty spend more _time_ on things, yeah, but not more money or money per use. You can see some discussion on that from people who actually grew up poor in https://mastodon.social/@danluu/111068036776213383

If you step back a bit from the boots example you can see the boots theory in action.

Consider socks (I know there's another thread that calls this a 'micro-optimization', likely right, but still...).

Never buy a pair of socks. Or, never buy one pair of socks -- buy a few packs, identical, well priced, and ideally on sale. If on sale, buy them now: if they're clearance, you may not get to come back tomorrow. Now you save:

- money: when one sock wears out, you don't need to discard an orphan. Also, if they are prone to early wearing out, you get enough warning to look for another sale.

- time: when sorting, you don't need to match individual socks --- the green ones all match

But a dozen or more pairs of socks looks like an investment when you are on minimum wage.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#63

Post by em-bee »

stavros wrote: post #55
em-bee wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on steam you can get your money back if you play less than two hours. i wish they'd make it 5 hours though. two hours is kind of tight to evaluate a large game. for some i can't even get through the tutorial in that time.

I know they have a refund policy, but it's too much of a hassle to go through checkout, enter my card, check out, then play, make sure I don't go to 2:01, etc. I'd much prefer to install the game, play, and get a dialog "your trial is over, would you like to buy to continue?" and I can pay at that point.

i fully agree. that's why i wanted 5 hours. the 2 hour limit is just to tight.

on the positive side i did notice a fair number of demos pop up on steam lately, which for those that i have tried, let you play the first few levels of a game, which depending on the game is even better because there is no time limit at all. and no need for a credit card either.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#64

Post by ProllyInfamous »

This is why I ended up purchasing a "hybrid" water heater [primarily uses a heat pump to heat water]. After the first couple years, the substantial energy savings ends up meaning "free hot water" after just a few years of ownership. Costs about 2x a "normal" water heater, but uses 4x less energy.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#66

Post by 8n4vidtmkvmk »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #53
fragmede wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All items are cheaper in bulk, so the class of items that are more expensive for poor people is actually pretty much everything. Being poor means your friends and family and roommates and neighbors are also broke, so you can't buy in bulk because they gonna steal yo shit. So you're forced to buy singles, which are more expensive. Being able to store the bulk goods from a CostCo run without them walking off is a privi…

I see somethign similar to this in poor countries I've visited. people who are very poor don't have enough money to maintain a bank account so they just store cash. they have a mindset of spending what they have and never saving. I thought it was stupid till I realized that having a bunch of cash at home just makes you a target for getting robbed. SO you end up with people who spend as soon as they have over a certai…

Ridiculous that banking isn't free. I never pay banking fees. But also.. it's the poor that get hit with the NSF fees and high interest rates which is also predatory.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#67

Post by rokkitmensch »

Ekaros wrote: post #9
angry_moose wrote: post #5

Cost/use really only works well for things where the results of use are broadly equivalent across price tiers. In the example given, expensive socks and cheap socks are basically the same when new (they'll keep your feet warm, padded, and wick away moisture), the only difference is how long that lasts. For things like tools its often a bad metric unless you truly only need it once. In addition to durability; the ergo…

And do they actually get job done... Hammer drills compared to impact drills...

Apples and oranges. I need to sink into masonry approximately never, but demand tight bolt-ups on the weekly. I own several impact drivers, and no hammer drills.

Give me torque or give me death!

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#68

Post by tomjen3 »

delgaudm wrote: post #3

A fine heuristic if you have enough money to make the choice in the first place. [1]Sam Vimes’s ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness, propounded in Men at Arms: "But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hun…

That might have been relevant 50 years ago, but even good boots are not that expensive. And if you save that much, put the boots on a credit card, the cost of that is less than what you save on the better boots.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#69

Post by rokkitmensch »

xnx wrote: post #46
piggybox wrote: post #23

My ex-manager once told me whenever he decides what to eat for a meal, he prioritizes calories per $.

Does your ex-manager drink cooking oil?

When I was in engineering school, my employed mentors would roast me with precisely this torch.

Re: Whenever I buy things I try to prioritize cost per use

#70

Post by rokkitmensch »

motohagiography wrote: post #34

When I was a younger cyclist, I felt this way about stop signs. The fine for ignoring one was fixed, rare, and occurred at random, so getting my marginal cost per run sign as close to zero as I could was the rational choice. Penalties that affect your license change those incentives, but arbitrary enforcement rewards noncompliance.

Stop signs should really be yield signs for bikes, the cost to actually stop on a bike at every stop sign is ridiculous, and furthermore ruins the enjoyment of a casual ride around the neighborhood.

But don't let my kids hear me talking like this...

Post reply on HN