3 ms·
I think it's just a bad example. Unless you mishandle them these things never break and are basically free at the next good-will or fleamarket. Maybe shoes are
by kaybe 9y ago
I think it's just a bad example. Unless you mishandle them these things never break and are basically free at the next good-will or fleamarket.
Maybe shoes are a better example? Though identifying good quality is a lot of work in itself and may signal status I guess.
- pm90 9y agoShoes: definitely. But it applies to other, seemingly mundane things. e.g. Cookware, Vacuum Cleaner, Furniture etc. The quality differential b/w a dyson and the cheap $20 vaccuuum is staggering; using a dyson is a pleasant experience while the $20 cheapo? Not so much. Don't get me wrong. When I was a grad student, I bought the cheapest vacuum, cheapest shoes and clothes. But I did know that better quality things did exist, and didn't hesitate to purchase them when I could finally afford to.
- atomi 9y agoDo the Dysons suck more?
- blacksmith_tb 9y agoDyson vacuums have interesting industrial design, but in terms of function they don't even make the CR top ten[1], so yes, I expect they are better than some, but they are also more expensive than most. 1: https://www.consumerreports.org/products/upright-vacuum/ratings-overview/ https://www.consumerreports.org/products/upright-vacuum/rati...
- pm90 9y agoThose reviews are paywalled, so I can't really see what criterion they are using to rate a product high/low. I agree though that Dyson's are pricey, but they last long and are a joy to use. Not saying there aren't other models that do the same.
- edoceo 9y agoDSW has a rack in the back of every store with heavily discounted (50+%) shoes. Good quality, great price, limited selection. 10/10
- kaybe 9y agoToo bad the worth of this information is regionally constrained. (The internet is truely amazing to bridge this gap so easily.)