4 ms·

> The next time you visit a Dollar Tree, compare the actual amount that you get for something like flour, oatmeal, detergent... really anything, to the sizes so

by jeswin 8y ago

> The next time you visit a Dollar Tree, compare the actual amount that you get for something like flour, oatmeal, detergent... really anything, to the sizes sold at normal stores. Many financially constrained people have a cash flow problem - they often end up spending more as you said. However, buying larger quantities is still not an option because the money is simply not there. Being able to plan out a month is a luxury in some ways.

dorchadas 8y ago
Exactly. It's one of the biggest issues in trying to help people out of poverty. As Sam Vimes's "Boot Theory" sums it up: >The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. >Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. >But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. >This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness. It's essentially true. Poorer people have to buy the smaller quantities/cheaper materials because it's all they can afford. And because of that, they end up having to buy it more often, often spending more in the long run. I'm actively trying to change my wardrobe now that I've realized that, and buy clothes that will last longer as opposed to cheaper ones that I have to replace more often. Thankfully, I have the money to do so, but many do not.
- iguy 8y ago
  I like the boot story as much as the next guy, but is this actually true in the real world? By which I mean something like this: In what categories of products do rich people actually spend less than poor people? Are there any? It's certainly true that top-end clothing lasts longer than cheap stuff. But the people who buy it like nice things, and variety. Maybe car repairs? But probably a trick of counting the new-car service plan as part of the purchase price.
  - diydsp 8y ago
    it's all an information game of continuously and strategically evaluating every purchase! i buy almonds at the indian grocery for $5/lb in 3lb qty rather than $7. i drive a used toyota camry even though it's boring as hell but low $/mile. heck part of the value of desktop pcs is their modularity... there's also a subreddit called buyitonce iir.
    - chrisallenlane 8y ago
      > there's also a subreddit called buyitonce iir. You're thinking of /r/BuyItForLife.
    - iguy 8y ago
      In my case, saving money by buying nuts in bulk is like a frat house saving money by ordering kegs. More seriously I've also saved money by having a prepaid phone plan which was a lot more expensive per minute. And by buying super-cheap ice skates which I'm sure would have worn out after 10 times... and throwing them out when I moved soon after. In other words, sometimes the simple calculation by which a more durable item is cheaper, leaves out important things.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Rich people can afford to buy white goods. They can buy online using a credit card (and pay off the balance before they're charged interest). Poor people have to buy on hire purchase or using payday loans, which end up being significantly more expensive. Wealthy people in the UK can buy their utilities using direct debit, which is normally cheaper than paying the bill as it comes in. Poor people may be on a pre-payment token meter. These used to be more expensive than a normal bill. There's a bunch of stuff like this.
    - iguy 8y ago
      These are all true, but they are weaker examples than the boots, where the rich guy bought a higher quality version of something which both needed, and still saved money.
ComputerGuru 8y ago
Patently not true, although not obviously so: https://www.mail-archive.com/kragen-tol@canonical.org/msg00309.html https://www.mail-archive.com/kragen-tol@canonical.org/msg003...
ravenstine 8y ago
That, I am not disputing. It doesn't change the fact that people probably aren't finding many bargains at such places. Dollar stores basically make being poor viable, but there's little if any dollar-stretching going on. Having been poor myself at times, I do understand that smaller quantities are often the better choice, but they should not be mistaken as bargains. Having known other poor people, a lot of them(as in not all) indeed think that they are finding bargains at dollar stores. Nobody wants to hear this, but a significant portion of the lower-income segment are in their situation because of their mindset.

by jeswin 8y ago

dorchadas 8y ago

Exactly. It's one of the biggest issues in trying to help people out of poverty. As Sam Vimes's "Boot Theory" sums it up: >The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. >Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. >But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. >This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness. It's essentially true. Poorer people have to buy the smaller quantities/cheaper materials because it's all they can afford. And because of that, they end up having to buy it more often, often spending more in the long run. I'm actively trying to change my wardrobe now that I've realized that, and buy clothes that will last longer as opposed to cheaper ones that I have to replace more often. Thankfully, I have the money to do so, but many do not.

iguy 8y ago
I like the boot story as much as the next guy, but is this actually true in the real world? By which I mean something like this: In what categories of products do rich people actually spend less than poor people? Are there any? It's certainly true that top-end clothing lasts longer than cheap stuff. But the people who buy it like nice things, and variety. Maybe car repairs? But probably a trick of counting the new-car service plan as part of the purchase price.
- diydsp 8y ago
  it's all an information game of continuously and strategically evaluating every purchase! i buy almonds at the indian grocery for $5/lb in 3lb qty rather than $7. i drive a used toyota camry even though it's boring as hell but low $/mile. heck part of the value of desktop pcs is their modularity... there's also a subreddit called buyitonce iir.
  - chrisallenlane 8y ago
    > there's also a subreddit called buyitonce iir. You're thinking of /r/BuyItForLife.
  - iguy 8y ago
    In my case, saving money by buying nuts in bulk is like a frat house saving money by ordering kegs. More seriously I've also saved money by having a prepaid phone plan which was a lot more expensive per minute. And by buying super-cheap ice skates which I'm sure would have worn out after 10 times... and throwing them out when I moved soon after. In other words, sometimes the simple calculation by which a more durable item is cheaper, leaves out important things.
- DanBC 8y ago
  Rich people can afford to buy white goods. They can buy online using a credit card (and pay off the balance before they're charged interest). Poor people have to buy on hire purchase or using payday loans, which end up being significantly more expensive. Wealthy people in the UK can buy their utilities using direct debit, which is normally cheaper than paying the bill as it comes in. Poor people may be on a pre-payment token meter. These used to be more expensive than a normal bill. There's a bunch of stuff like this.
  - iguy 8y ago
    These are all true, but they are weaker examples than the boots, where the rich guy bought a higher quality version of something which both needed, and still saved money.

ComputerGuru 8y ago

Patently not true, although not obviously so: https://www.mail-archive.com/kragen-tol@canonical.org/msg00309.html https://www.mail-archive.com/kragen-tol@canonical.org/msg003...

ravenstine 8y ago

That, I am not disputing. It doesn't change the fact that people probably aren't finding many bargains at such places. Dollar stores basically make being poor viable, but there's little if any dollar-stretching going on. Having been poor myself at times, I do understand that smaller quantities are often the better choice, but they should not be mistaken as bargains. Having known other poor people, a lot of them(as in not all) indeed think that they are finding bargains at dollar stores. Nobody wants to hear this, but a significant portion of the lower-income segment are in their situation because of their mindset.