3 ms·
Who is to say that $40,000 in shoes is any worse than $100 in shoes constantly used and abused? In that extreme of a case I would say it's most likely worse, bu
by rwmurrayVT 7y ago
Who is to say that $40,000 in shoes is any worse than $100 in shoes constantly used and abused? In that extreme of a case I would say it's most likely worse, but there's something to be said for more expensive and longer-lasting.
In Carrie's case I would say it's worse just because she never struck me as the type to wear them for more than a single fashion season. Love the show, hate the movies.
- baroffoos 7y agoI buy $100 shoes. They typically last me about 3 years. $40,000 worth of shoes assuming they last just as long per $ (Wrong but its the only way this comparison works) would last me many lifetimes. There is simply no way that a person could spend that much on shoes in a lifetime and it be a good idea. One thing I am considering is going slightly up and getting a pair of $600 leather boots since I know someone who has been wearing the same pair for 10 years now and just has the sole replaced.
- aembleton 7y agoBut that doesn't mean that they do any more damage to the environment in their production. If they last just as long then they are no worse than the $100 shoes.
- amacalac 7y agoI did the $600 leather boot thing. They've lasted me 4 years so far, and look almost brand new. I mostly wear them in fall,winter and spring. (They're a little heavy for summer). I'd wager 1 pair of $600 boots removes the need to buy 4 or 5 pairs of cheaper boots – and lessens the impact on the environment. It's difficult though for the majority of people to afford $600 up front; so the argument of eco-friendly vs economics is not a choice for most people.