5 ms·

For the frugal/high spender conflict, I can kind of see how that might happen. I try to buy quality goods because cheap stuff doesn't last. That means spending

For the frugal/high spender conflict, I can kind of see how that might happen. I try to buy quality goods because cheap stuff doesn't last. That means spending more up front to spend less in the long run. So frugal, but also maybe high spender? My mom always says: if you're poor, you can't afford to buy cheap.

madeofpalk 8y ago
I guess the 'spoiler' is that I'm fortunate enough to certainly not be a frugal spender. Yet another data point they have about me that they sell, but is completely incorrect.
walshemj 8y ago
I think this might be it eg spending $250 instead of $50 on shoes or boots for longer life and improved comfort.
- pishpash 8y ago
  $250 shoes do not last 5 times as long as $50 shoes. Improved comfort is the main benefit.
  - ebullientocelot 8y ago
    The math can work out in some cases. I've had my 400$ Allen Edmunds for 8 years, some wear, but generally still in fantastic shape and very comfortable. Prior to getting them I bought 1-3 pairs of ~70$ department store shoes per year.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      Usually it's very anecdotal and hard to tell ahead of time. My current shoes cost 40€ and that was about 4 years ago. So they have lasted atleast half as long as your expensive shows for 1/10th the price.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      I have some inexpensive Chinese-made boots that are over a decade old, I think. It can't be the norm that shoes last 4 months, unless you are talking about wearing down the soles of running shoes.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    easier to repair also
pishpash 8y ago
That almost never works for the reason you describe. For any quality item that lasts M times as long as the cheap item, you can almost always find N > M such that you can buy N copies of the cheap item for the price of one quality item. You do not spend less in the long run, though you can convince yourself of that. The primary effect of buying cheap is not financial, it's that you're dealing with less quality over the entire usage lifetime (hence getting less utility out of it) and the replacement effort has cost (but which for poor people is very little by definition).
concerned_user 8y ago
It is probably because they have to show you the categories/tags but they are not required to show you the exact percentage/probability. So in their db they have it like 80% frugal spender, 15% high spender but when exported you see it as a yes/no which is confusing.
d1zzy 8y ago
All things equal (features that I need from the product) I like to buy high quality things because they make me feel good (they look well built, they give me this warm feeling inside that I got my money's worth). But I realize this is all emotional and rationally I shouldn't, in most cases. I don't think they pay off long term, at least it seems heavily dependent on the product type. That's because we are playing a lottery game, even if this product breaks in 0.1% cases vs 5% cases for a much cheaper product, we're not buying large numbers of them, we're buying just one and while the probability to break on me is smaller it can still happen and the monetary loss would be much larger than if I were to buy the cheaper product. That is, the warranty doesn't scale with the price (the expensive top quality TV is $2000 and the cheaper one is $500 and both have 1 year of warranty), for the same money I can buy 4 of those $500 TVs and would last at least 4 years (but very likely to find at least one that will work much longer, since I'm buying up to 4 of them).

madeofpalk 8y ago

I guess the 'spoiler' is that I'm fortunate enough to certainly not be a frugal spender. Yet another data point they have about me that they sell, but is completely incorrect.

walshemj 8y ago

I think this might be it eg spending $250 instead of $50 on shoes or boots for longer life and improved comfort.

pishpash 8y ago
$250 shoes do not last 5 times as long as $50 shoes. Improved comfort is the main benefit.
- ebullientocelot 8y ago
  The math can work out in some cases. I've had my 400$ Allen Edmunds for 8 years, some wear, but generally still in fantastic shape and very comfortable. Prior to getting them I bought 1-3 pairs of ~70$ department store shoes per year.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Usually it's very anecdotal and hard to tell ahead of time. My current shoes cost 40€ and that was about 4 years ago. So they have lasted atleast half as long as your expensive shows for 1/10th the price.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    I have some inexpensive Chinese-made boots that are over a decade old, I think. It can't be the norm that shoes last 4 months, unless you are talking about wearing down the soles of running shoes.
- walshemj 8y ago
  easier to repair also

pishpash 8y ago

That almost never works for the reason you describe. For any quality item that lasts M times as long as the cheap item, you can almost always find N > M such that you can buy N copies of the cheap item for the price of one quality item. You do not spend less in the long run, though you can convince yourself of that. The primary effect of buying cheap is not financial, it's that you're dealing with less quality over the entire usage lifetime (hence getting less utility out of it) and the replacement effort has cost (but which for poor people is very little by definition).

concerned_user 8y ago

It is probably because they have to show you the categories/tags but they are not required to show you the exact percentage/probability. So in their db they have it like 80% frugal spender, 15% high spender but when exported you see it as a yes/no which is confusing.

d1zzy 8y ago

All things equal (features that I need from the product) I like to buy high quality things because they make me feel good (they look well built, they give me this warm feeling inside that I got my money's worth). But I realize this is all emotional and rationally I shouldn't, in most cases. I don't think they pay off long term, at least it seems heavily dependent on the product type. That's because we are playing a lottery game, even if this product breaks in 0.1% cases vs 5% cases for a much cheaper product, we're not buying large numbers of them, we're buying just one and while the probability to break on me is smaller it can still happen and the monetary loss would be much larger than if I were to buy the cheaper product. That is, the warranty doesn't scale with the price (the expensive top quality TV is $2000 and the cheaper one is $500 and both have 1 year of warranty), for the same money I can buy 4 of those $500 TVs and would last at least 4 years (but very likely to find at least one that will work much longer, since I'm buying up to 4 of them).