5 ms·
See “The Sam Vimes “Boots” Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness”: The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less m
by CobaltFire 4y ago
See “The Sam Vimes “Boots” Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness”:
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 a 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.
-Sir Terry Pratchett
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
- opportune 4y ago
- Aunche 4y agoIt's easier to make economic theories that fit science fiction rather than real life. The Vimes boots problem has already been solved by financing. Services like Affirm would allow Sam Vimes to pay the $50 boots in 4 biweekly installments of $12.50. If the theory were correct, then buy-now-pay-later programs would help alleviate poverty, but what we see instead is that it worsens it by enabling consumerist purchases.
- p0pcult 4y agoWho qualifies for zero interest financing?
- king-geedorah 4y agoExactly, the interest rate on affirm is pretty high starting at 10%
- Aunche 4y agoBuy-now-pay-later unicorns are funded by VC funny money. They care more about growth than actually trying to turn a profit. You can get approved even with zero credit history.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mattnewton 4y agoAffirm is pretty new, doesn't give zero interest to everyone or support all purchases. Credit cards and payday loans support all purchases and actually exacerbate this issue by extracting money from people. It makes sense after all, they are a service that has to make money and if rich people don't need their service, where is the money going to come from? Affirm could work if it was not trying to make a profit (maybe off VC funds), but it is difficult for me to understand how it will solve this issue and be profitable.
- treis 4y agoThis annoys me every time I see it. Good boots don't cost 1.5 months of a worker's salary. They cost a day's or less. And if you buy used stuff you can live cheaper than ever. In that respect it's a golden age for the poor. The problems for the poor in modern America are health care, education, and rent.
- CobaltFire 4y agoI think you may miss the point. Literature doesn’t have to write literally about something for the point to be made. The boots are a stand in for whatever the issue at hand IS (rent vice buying a house would be apt).
- michaelbuckbee 4y agoIt's a metaphor for the greater issues of being poor, which, as you quite accurately stated, are health care, education, and rent. Health care: you can afford your insulin or you blood sugar goes out of whack and you end up in the ER. Education: you can't afford the time to learn a new skill (or even attend school) so you can't move up out of your low-paying job. Rent: you're paying high rent instead of owning. The issues extend from these all the way down to the boots level.
- treis 4y agoNot really because in the boots example it's a tyranny that reigned over all poor people. The things you mentioned are easily avoidable through choices or luck. Not everyone is disabled, not everyone racked up dumb student loans, not everyone lives in a stupid high rent area, and so on.
- tzs 4y ago> Good boots don't cost 1.5 months of a worker's salary. Now. But in the past it was plausible. See this list of assorted wages and prices for items in the mid-19th century in the US [1]. Boots were around $25. There were many jobs that paid low enough that $25 would be in the neighborhood of 1.5 months worth of pay. [1] http://anotherandrosphereblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-much-did-things-cost-in-1850s-usa.html http://anotherandrosphereblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-much-...
- b59831 4y agoAnother thing about being poor is that, even if you buy the 50$ boots, there's then a good chance someone will steal them from you.