5 ms·
I never buy expensive stuff, since I assume that all I am paying is marketing. I have no time to research better, except for things I understand well and I rea
by gonvaled 9y ago
I never buy expensive stuff, since I assume that all I am paying is marketing.
I have no time to research better, except for things I understand well and I really care about, i.e. a laptop. And even then repairability is not on my list, since laptops have so many options that finding one which satisfies my needs is already a challenge.
The problem is compounded by the fact that my criteria (big horsepower per kg and lightweight) are contrary to repairability.
- cmrx64 9y agothe "buy it for life" subreddit helps a lot here, for at least narrowing down the search space.
- gonvaled 9y agoI"ll try that, but I am in the EU, no idea if it applies.
- walshemj 9y agoYou obvisly haven't compared how high street shoes / boots compare to mid market brands like loake are in terms of comfort and longevity. Its worth paying £170 for the comfort alone
- gonvaled 9y agoNo I haven't. The prospect of spending 200+€ in shoes, which are going to last forever, but which I am not going to use for long because they will optically deteriorate and I will anyway get tired of, is not alluring. My criteria for shoes (except for sports) is: 1. I must be able to put them on/off in 3s, without bending. Which implies no laces (or pre-tied knots) 2. reasonably comfortable 3. light 4. cheap
- walshemj 9y agoDo you not use shoe Polish?
- gonvaled 9y agoI still get tired of the shoes, they still smell, fashion keeps on changing and 10 year old shoes are not the same as new shoes, no matter how good they are. Most shoes last for years, even cheap ones. I still put them in thr cellar after 2-3 years. Those shoes would be good as my only shoes in a Mad Max world. Mmmm ... not even, I would prefer trekking shoes.
- walshemj 9y agoWell just by classic designs that have been around for decades and shoe design doesn't change much for males or females for that matter.
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoI don't believe it, I know the marketers of these companies want you to believe it but I don't (and I own an expensive pair of walking boots). Generally I've found avoiding the bottom 10% gives you the most bang for your buck.
- lagadu 9y agoThat's the problem: you're optimizing for bang-for-buck. Regular shoes/trainers only go up to a few hundred $, they're cheap enough that, as long as they have a median wage in a developed country, the buyer can optimize for something else like comfort without a significant financial impact. Bang for buck optimizing is only worth it for certain cost/income combos. In other words: the value of money varies for each individual.
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoI think I'd argue there is no difference other than possibly as some kind of economic signal which I try and avoid.
- walshemj 9y agoI was away for a month and took a new pair of Chelsea boots from a bog standard high street shop with me - didn't want to look to scrufy on a v high profile project. Walking the 1/2 mile up princess street from hotel to the office in them caused so much pain after 2 days I had to go out and buy some trainers. Never had that with Loakes - I d agree that paying 2k plus for hand fitted shoes like the city boys wear is probably over kill.
- refurb 9y agoMarketing ROI is typically positive, so you're not really paying for marketing.