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

61–70 of 71 posts

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

#61

Post by lotsofpulp »

floren wrote: post #59
lotsofpulp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am lucky I have a wide range that I find comfortable, because the $30 Costco shoes and the $180 On Clouds are all the same to me. I also don't buy them every 3 months, maybe 6 months at most frequent. Last time was probably almost a year ago, and I got 2 pairs, one to keep nice so they're presentable, and the other for literally anything else, and they look terrible, but still aren't coming apart.

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

#62

Post by dlcarrier »

Vimes is talking about being penny wise and pound foolish.

It is not in any way addressing costly signalling, a completely unrelated behavior where purposefully wasteful and highly visible spending on lower-utility products elevates social status, making low-utility products more expensive and more common than equivalent high-quality products.

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

#63

Post by nzach »

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…

> More expensive clothes are usually less durable

I have nothing to back that up, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is a feature. If these luxury items are being used by the society (or at least in some circles) as a proxy for 'success'(ie having enough disposable money) it probably would be better if they we also quite fragile. This way you could distinguish between someone who received a expense gift vs someone that has money to always keep buying new items.

I'm not sure how real it this, but I've read somewhere that part of the appeal of expensive glassware was the fact that it was pretty fragile. Serving someone at your house with expensive glassware was a way to tell 'look how much money I've got'.

Just to be clear, I don't think we should get impressed/try to impress people by how much money someone has. But that is a practice as old as time, and it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon.

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

#65

Post by tonyedgecombe »

triceratops wrote: post #17
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 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.

It doesn’t matter how luxurious first class is I am never going to get a good nights sleep on a plane.

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

#66

Post by ValentineC »

everdrive wrote: post #7
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!).

This is still true in the margin, but it requires a shocking amount of research to suss it out. You might enjoy the Rose Anvil channel, as it dissects boots (literally) and discusses their quality in depth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vHTlrwHttc There are cases where spending more gets you a more premium product ... but in so, so many cases it's just like you stated. You spend on luxury, and the "nice" speakers…

Rose Anvil has (like many other internet celebrities) had some controversies:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Boots/comments/1oyxfuo/what_do_you_...

That said, I like watching him for validation that my taste is good, since I bought Lems' shoes before he started plugging them.

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

#67

Post by everdrive »

ValentineC wrote: post #66
everdrive wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is still true in the margin, but it requires a shocking amount of research to suss it out. You might enjoy the Rose Anvil channel, as it dissects boots (literally) and discusses their quality in depth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vHTlrwHttc There are cases where spending more gets you a more premium product ... but in so, so many cases it's just like you stated. You spend on luxury, and the "nice" speakers…

Rose Anvil has (like many other internet celebrities) had some controversies: https://www.reddit.com/r/Boots/comments/1oyxfuo/what_do_you_... That said, I like watching him for validation that my taste is good, since I bought Lems' shoes before he started plugging them.

I think that's fair. I didn't know anything about boots before watching him, so I wasn't aware that boot construction could even vary so much. I had no sense that a pair of $80 boots were effectively glorified tennis shoes, whereas nearly any $200 boot would be much more durable and constructed fundamentally differently. (even if all $200 boots are not equivalent with each other) So, even if he's doing a little access journalism and has some bias, I still think there is some value in just understanding the construction of different boots.

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

#68

Post by m3047 »

triceratops wrote: post #17
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 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.

Amtrak sucks in so many ways, but that said for almost a decade prior to COVID when I had the opportunity (roughly yearly) I'd travel Amtrak first class between Tacoma WA and Oakland CA (Starlight). Kind of a day's vacation going each way (and they'd sell you a tax free bottle of good wine you could wander around first class with).

It was weird, I would arrive in Oak / SF rested, grounded, not nearly as stressed... and without a flying horror story to share (although the "alien abduction" made a good story). [0]

At the end of the journey Amtrak sucked, but flying sucks more; so much of the suck is fixable in both cases but it never seems to happen.

[0] I'd rate your chances as about 1:3 something unexpected will occur. An 11PM electrical fire / "alien abduction". They put the train together wrong / in a hurry and first class was right behind the engines (they sealed the door with duct tape to keep the rain / snow / wind out), and at night going through the Cascades in OR there were a half dozen of us crowding around with our wine bottles looking out over the engines; very cool. A freight broke apart in the Cascades stretch and we sat in the bar car (drinking wine) and watched the maintenance crews humping connector knuckles from behind us up to the freight in front of us (some of those freights are over a mile long; did I mention we were basically on the side of a cliff?).

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

#69

Post by avani »

dlcarrier wrote: post #60
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 abou…

Given its lower melt point and ductility, silver is actually much much better to make jewelry with than stainless steel. Especially if you are also trying to include gold in your piece!

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

#70

Post by AnthonBerg »

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…

Depends what kind of expensive.

Bought an expensive jacket. It's indestructible and cool and has good pockets. It's a motorcycle jacket. I didn't know I was buying an indestructible normal jacket.

Post reply on HN