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

The Looming End of Payless ShoeSource

theoutline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 124 posts

Re: The Looming End of Payless ShoeSource

#91

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

jstarfish wrote: post #88
joegahona wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trail-running shoes are, imo, the best shoes for hiking. I do a ton of hiking and see people all the time in those thick, clunky hiking boots they sell for $200 at REI. Totally unnecessary.

Depends on what you're hiking. Boots protect against minor injuries and frostbite to shins, calves, toes, soles and ankles and reinforce the same if you do tear something and end up having to limp for miles (splint or not).

Also, if it's really wet / swampy, you're gonna have a bad time without boots.

Re: The Looming End of Payless ShoeSource

#92

Post by Washuu »

flukus wrote: post #90
starik36 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My were usually gone by 6 months to a year, which isn't great. But then they cost $20. I'd usually buy 2 pairs. I think they were worth their cost.

6 months to a year is what I generally get out of "high quality" name brands like asics and nike, the only difference seems to be which part of the shoe goes first, with budget brands it's the sole, more expensive ones it tends to get holes around the top of the toe area.

I have the opposite problem. When I was a kid(very active, used 8+ hours a day) all I had were shoes from Payless and they lasted two years. Recently I have purchased different "high quality" brands in the $50+ range and each has worn through the soles in less than six months. I barely wear my shoes an hour each day.

Re: The Looming End of Payless ShoeSource

#93

Post by asark »

distantaidenn wrote: post #56
pascalxus wrote: post #17

Shoes is one of those things I almost never need to buy, now that I'm an adult and fully grown. Even the very cheapest ones can last me 10 years or more without wearing out. Actually, it's the Nikes that wear out much faster, it seems. PS:(edit) I walk around a decent amount and even go running 6 to 9 miles per week. Even a super cheap pair of running shoes won't show any holes in it for 4+ years at least. The Nike o…

Same, I bought a quite expensive pair of Chippewa brand engineering boots ($500 US) and they're going on 5 years strong. The only care I need is the occasional wax, scuff removal, and a re-sole. The cost may seem a bit much at first, but compare it to buying a cheap pair once every couple of months. Shoes really are one of the few things in life you shouldn't skimp on. As an aside, price isn't the only import factor…

With you on that, been really happy wearing nicer leather "work"-style boots. They look good, they wear great (after the first couple foot-destroying weeks), they last for-friggin'-ever, and beating them up doesn't really hurt their aesthetic, so far as that goes. I've gone the Redwing Heritage route, getting one pair at a store and using that sizing to buy a couple pairs of seconds in other styles at ~40% off retail for firsts.

I've also become a loafers fan. In US fashion, at least, a good pair of black or dark brown loafers can be worn all the way up to business-formal, to weddings, funerals, et c., but also dressed down to business- or smart-casual, and if they get beat up they just become toss-on-and-go shoes for any occasion, even if it's just mowing the lawn. Again, they last a good long time if they're US- or European-made. I don't think either beats cheap sneakers for price over a lifetime, but then you get whatever benefit a nicer look and a little more formality-range gets you from going for well-crafted leather, and they aren't so much more expensive considering that and how long they last. Sure $200+ for a pair of shoes is a bit of a shock at first, but when they're in your rotation for 10-20 years it seems less crazy.

Re: The Looming End of Payless ShoeSource

#94

Post by madengr »

irishcoffee wrote: post #59
nathancahill wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a pair of Converse that I used for this purpose. Completely torn to shreds and full of holes. Had an Asian lady stay at our Airbnb and she saw them, said people would go crazy for that "distressed" look in Asia (forget the specific country) so I gave them to her for her to take back.

Heh I have about 4 pairs of worn out Chuck's sitting in a closet. Size 13, wonder if there's a market for those

I still wear them, moving them to the garage for lawn mowing shoes, and grabbing a new box. Usually buy them in sets of 3 from Amazon; size 14 in red.

In the early 90’s they were $18 and made in USA. Within 1 year they went to $40 and made in China.

Re: The Looming End of Payless ShoeSource

#95

Post by nradov »

tropo wrote: post #82
buerkle wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many cases California and New York voters count much less than in smaller, more rural states. The senators from Wyoming represent about 300,000 people each. The senators in California represent nearly 19,000,000 each. And the The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the number in the House of Representatives. In this case, each California House member represents three times as many people as the House member…

Wyoming, and any state rounded up to 1 representative, is special. Aside from that the effect is minor. There is an effect going the other direction that benefits California, and in fact is why there is a fight going on at the Supreme Court. Voters in those rural states are underrepresented due to non-citizens being counted to apportion the representatives. California has something like a couple dozen extra represent…

The effects of Wyoming having two senators are far from minor in an age where key votes have been decided on a 51-49 basis.

Re: The Looming End of Payless ShoeSource

#96

Post by dehrmann »

Spooky23 wrote: post #33

The missing factor is that when shoe production was completely sourced to a few companies in China (70% of US market), nearly all shoes turned to shit. So Payless wasn’t really differentiated itself from any other value brand. The end of Payless is just another private equity story, and poor kids will just get a smaller variety of shitty shoes from WalMart, TJMaxx, or Dollar General. The majority of us get screwed in…

> The end of Payless is just another private equity story

There have been a few of these, lately. I'm having a hard time telling if the debt PE loaded the firms with is the problem, or if it only sped up the inevitable. PE doesn't buy companies because they're doing well; it buys them because they're failing.

Re: The Looming End of Payless ShoeSource

#97

Post by protomyth »

pard68 wrote: post #39
Spooky23 wrote: post #33

The missing factor is that when shoe production was completely sourced to a few companies in China (70% of US market), nearly all shoes turned to shit. So Payless wasn’t really differentiated itself from any other value brand. The end of Payless is just another private equity story, and poor kids will just get a smaller variety of shitty shoes from WalMart, TJMaxx, or Dollar General. The majority of us get screwed in…

Never been to PayLess, is it any good, or rather was it? Also, should mention TJMaxx has decent stuff. Never bought shoes there but I get pants, shirts, and random stuff for the house. My wife gets plenty of clothes there though.

Well, when I was a kid you could say at least we aren’t buying K-Mart or Pamida shoes. Foot Locker or its equivalent had the name brands.

Re: The Looming End of Payless ShoeSource

#98

Post by joe_the_user »

pard68 wrote: post #39
Spooky23 wrote: post #33

The missing factor is that when shoe production was completely sourced to a few companies in China (70% of US market), nearly all shoes turned to shit. So Payless wasn’t really differentiated itself from any other value brand. The end of Payless is just another private equity story, and poor kids will just get a smaller variety of shitty shoes from WalMart, TJMaxx, or Dollar General. The majority of us get screwed in…

Never been to PayLess, is it any good, or rather was it? Also, should mention TJMaxx has decent stuff. Never bought shoes there but I get pants, shirts, and random stuff for the house. My wife gets plenty of clothes there though.

Payless has been my favorite shop for years.

I buy shoes that look like leather loafers but as basically as floppy as slippers. This is exactly what I want and need. They are respectable enough to wear in work situations but I can also use them for martial arts or any other physical activity. Basically, they're nearly as good as barefoot, which isn't practical for various reasons.

I find it ironic that a lot of folks buy $120 "toe shoes" when they learn of the value of nearly barefoot ... when they could just buy the proper cheap shoes instead.

(Edit, I've studied bodywork, balance system and such. The arch supports and such of "good shoes" are arguably actually back for most people, interfering with the natural rhythm of walking, etc).

Re: The Looming End of Payless ShoeSource

#99

Post by omegaworks »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #45
buerkle wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many cases California and New York voters count much less than in smaller, more rural states. The senators from Wyoming represent about 300,000 people each. The senators in California represent nearly 19,000,000 each. And the The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the number in the House of Representatives. In this case, each California House member represents three times as many people as the House member…

This is by design of course. The United States is a confederation of states...geographical balancing against population density was the Great Compromise. That people are surprised or shocked by this reveals how poor our civics education has become. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_...

>geographical balancing against population density was the Great Compromise

That's flowery language to disguise what was essentially a pact between wealthy industrialists and slavers.

It's long past time to dismantle that "compromise."

Re: The Looming End of Payless ShoeSource

#100

Post by octonion »

tropo wrote: post #85
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a shame how true this is. My wife went through three pairs of Nike shoes -- all of them were over $100 and they caused bruises and wounds on her feet. I have a pair of Nikes as well that is one of their higher end shoes, and even they are extremely uncomfortable to wear for walking. As an aside, Payless Shoes also has bittersweet memories for me. When I was young, I didn't fully comprehend what shopping there me…

Now you can be judged for wearing Nike, especially if you step out of that city or travel back to visit the American midwest. New Balance is a far better choice. https://www.newbalance.com/made-in-us-and-uk/

Nike is doing better than ever, and it's silly to even suggest that wearing the best-selling brand of athletic shoes would be an issue anywhere in the US.
Post reply on HN