4 ms·
“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
by jeffwask 4y ago
“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.”
― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play
- jareklupinski 4y agosuccinctly put: "Poor man pays twice"
- cinntaile 4y agoI don't think this is true for most physical objects nowadays. The quality of the cheap stuff has gone up tremendously.
- jareklupinski 4y agooh god you're right it has become worse: "poor man pays forever" (subscription)
- sublinear 4y agoThe phrase you're looking for is "false economy". The hard part is not scraping together the money to buy the superior product, but determining if it really matters to you. Boots that you wear all day every day? Sure easy. Furniture that ends up getting light use? Maybe not. Which laptop does a college student really need, if at all? Does the family really need an SUV? It's just as easy to overbuy.