9 ms·

I think a lot of times this philosophy is just rich people justifying paying a lot for high status items. a pair of Crocs is 50 bucks and that's one of the hig

I think a lot of times this philosophy is just rich people justifying paying a lot for high status items. a pair of Crocs is 50 bucks and that's one of the highest quality pairs of shoes you'll buy for the price. you could buy 10 pairs of Crocs for a $500 pair of Alden's so even if the crocs only lasted a year, it would take a decade to recoup the investment on the Alden's. but the crocs don't have the same status that Alan Edmonds or Alden or Fiorentini does. Same thing with the G-Shock watch versus a Rolex. If you really want quality look at what middle class people are doing. Crocs, Kirkland, G-Shock, Corolla etc. All this stuff is top quality but rich people wouldn't be caught dead in them. Another thing rich people like to do is repurposing something completely trivial. This dude probably paid as much or close to shipping the shoes than a new wallet would have cost. This guy gets a feeling of satisfaction that they're making the world a better place by repurposing their shoes. Then they go to their job where they earn a lot of money defending companies who gave a small town cancer or a massive oil spill or wholesale invasion of privacy.

CPLX 3y ago
Pretty on the nose. I think even more accurate is that quality/longevity and price are almost completely decoupled. Spending more doesn’t guarantee higher quality it mostly gets you exceptional graphic design and deftly nested packaging that makes you feel good when you open it. But it’s not like all the cheap stuff is better. A Rolex is an incredible engineering marvel and is in fact very high quality and durable. So are Festool tools, and so on. But like so is G-shock and a random and difficult to pin down subset of Harbor Freight. The broader point is that none of this really makes a fucking difference most of the discussion is just people preening about their choices instead of admitting it’s mostly a roll of the dice. And the old stuff wasn’t “better” it was just different. When I was a kid in the 70’s and 80’s garages were full of shoddy junk from the 50’s and 60’s. That stuff is just all gone right now.
- nerdchum 3y ago
  Yeah completely agree that price is decoupled from quality nowadays and it's pretty random. Price seems to be based a lot more on marketing and brand saturation than quality. And quality brands get bought up all the time and the new company will coast on the brand while outsourcing manufacturing to the lowest bidder. And you can't trust reviews with affiliate marketing around. So pretty much the only thing to do to identify quality is to experiment or share info with people you trust. I've wasted a ton of money on shitty products on the way to identifying quality products. I'm not even railing against status. I bought a pair of Alan Edmonds specifically for job interviews to signal status but I wear LL Bean shoes and Crocs the rest of the time. Also, there's other factors besides just durability and status. There's aesthetics, variable utility, ease of replacement, warranty availability, price, etc. I hate shopping so I think alot about this haha
  - DubiousPusher 3y ago
    In the world of fashion perhaps. In the world of tools, absolutely not.
    - nerdchum 3y ago
      In human society its arguable that fashion is a tool of communication. At least thats how I have to justify it to myself because I hate being forced to participate in it but we all are constantly being judged on how we look.
      - DubiousPusher 3y ago
        My reply was strictly in regards to > Yeah completely agree that price is decoupled from quality nowadays In the world of physic tools, price and quality are highly coupled. To your other points, I honestly think fashion is very rewarding and healthy so long as you are focused on making yourself look good to you. And I agree, some fashion conformity is unavoidable. Especially depending upon your career field.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  The area in which this drives me the craziest is furniture. I have no idea how to find high quality durable furniture. Price signals definitely aren't it, but I have no idea what signals I can look for, or where to go to find them.
  - nerdchum 3y ago
    Furniture is INSANE! Ive never felt like I was in a more skeezy situation than mattress shopping.
  - frutiger 3y ago
    Design Within Reach, Herman Miller, Room & Board, Blu Dot, ...
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      Thanks this is really helpful. But how do I know what is or isn't junk at these retailers? None of the ones on this list have a showroom near me. And what goes in the ... ?
  - ticviking 3y ago
    You have to learn enough about how they are built and then haunt local consignment shops for good finds. It’s taken my wife and I years to slowly get pieces that will last the rest of our life.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      I have two young children, I don't have time to "haunt" anything. But before we had kids we tried this with consignment stores, would spend like a year looking for some simple piece of furniture, and end up with junk anyway.
  - vGPU 3y ago
    In general: pick the heaviest ones.
- msla 3y ago
  > A Rolex is an incredible engineering marvel and is in fact very high quality and durable. But it's fundamentally worse at being a timepiece than a digital watch synchronized to an NTP time server.
  - badpun 3y ago
    It's a Rube Goldberg machine.
  - Our_Benefactors 3y ago
    This is a completely different device than a mechanical watch. Nobody cross shops GPS watches with a Rolex. Maybe a grand Seiko.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    Not after a nuclear war.
    - Kirby64 3y ago
      Sure it is. Even a relatively poor quality Quartz watch is higher accuracy than a mechanical watch, without any sort of synchronization. Really good ones are accurate to one second per year. No need for NTP at all. If you're thinking about EMPs or something: well, I'd consider extremely accurate timekeeping to be the least of your concerns if no electronics work anymore...
mym1990 3y ago
I would say rich people who want to signal status would not get caught with those. But there are plenty of rich folks who want to fly under the radar, your millionaire next door types.
benmanns 3y ago
$50/$500 is a 10%/year yield, which is hard come by in any guaranteed investment. The Crocs will likely have no retained value, while the $500 shoes may be worth something after 10 years. However, that ignores the cost of maintaining a nice pair of shoes (both money and time) as one needs to clean, polish, and resole every so often. You might want shoes in two or three colors/styles, which would make the Crocs last 2-3x longer, same for the other shoes, but are you really going to want the same expensive shoes in 30 years? I think the higher end stuff that retains value and requires less maintenance might be a better example, like if someone is good at buying watches they could get a Rolex that appreciates in value and ends up costing them nothing vs a series of cheaper watches. Or compare to a $500 Apple Watch you replace every couple years. I don’t wear watches, though, and I’m not good at buying or selling them. Really, I think there are some expensive, durable goods that last longer and are cheaper you might think, but still more expensive once you take into account the maintenance and time value of money. But nice stuff is nice to have, and it’s helpful that you don’t have to replace it so often.
- nerdchum 3y ago
  Oh completely agree. My beef is with this smug patronizing attitude rich people have like theyre wise for buying expensive things that will last longer and the rest of us peons should learn from these wise sages. When thats not the case at all. You want to learn how to buy quality things look at a middle class family of four wearing big old granny Kirkland panties and driving a Subaru. Their overhead on purchases is low AND their returns are high.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- mathgeek 3y ago
  > The Crocs will likely have no retained value, while the $500 shoes may be worth something after 10 years. This is the core of the “secret” to wearing high quality shoes at a low cost. Buy good used shoes and get them resoled as necessary. E.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/comments/1jhp8o/a_ridiculously_comprehensive_guide_to_buying_used/ https://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/comments/1jhp8o/a...
sanderjd 3y ago
The way I would put the Crocs thing is that they are not versatile. Maybe you could live a whole life with a pair of Crocs and a pair of well made leather shoes. But in that situation a minimalism extremist might ask: what are the Crocs for? You can wear the leather shoes around the house but you can't wear the Crocs to a wedding. But I think your point is generally true, though I'm not convinced it is very responsive to this specific article. I didn't get much preachiness from this article, but maybe it was there, or maybe you are familiar with this person's other writing, I dunno. My take is that "minimalism" is indeed often a status game as you say, but that it also has good insights for the rest of us who aren't interested in those games, but do feel this sense of having too much junk cluttering up our lives. I'm far from a "true" minimalist, but reading stuff like this over the years has totally impacted my thinking. When thinking about buying things now, I do think about whether I could spend a little more for something I'll be able to use a lot more. Or even ignoring price differences either way, I just evaluate things from this perspective of durability. And I think that's good.
lumb63 3y ago
This isn’t a totally fair comparison. When people buy shoes, their criteria isn’t normally as low as “covers my feet”. They have a specific style they want, a specific material, and will shop amongst shoes that fit that description. Crocs and dress shoes are not interchangeable to a lot of people. A better comparison is to look at, for instance, Johnston and Murphy vs. Alden. Then you get a more fair comparison. For instance, one has welted soles and so they can be replaced without changing out the upper. Those soles are leather and provide excellent comfort. One uses full grain leather uppers, one does not. Everyone doesn’t need those, but if you’re someone who is wearing dress shoes to the office every day, it may be worth the benefit. You also don’t have to worry about replacing the shoe every year (though you do have to maintain it).
- nerdchum 3y ago
  Agree. Theres alot of factors involved in buying anything. So we need to stop acting like we have great wisdom for "Paying more for quality" when in reality status and fashion had as much to do with the purchase as well.
  - helmholtz 3y ago
    No, I think we need to stop contriving obviously skewed examples like Aldens vs Crocs. Boots vs shitty holey rubber sandals isn't a good comparison. Maybe compare backpack, or suits, or something along those lines.
    - nerdchum 3y ago
      "obvioudly skewed" how? Its pretty much the perfect example imo
      - helmholtz 3y ago
        Aldens vs cheapo 20 dollar amazon boots would be a better comparison. You ain't wearing Crocs with a suit my man.
ericpauley 3y ago
Completely agree. People love to tout the boots theory but the reality is that the people who claim this are often far beyond the point of optimal cost. Mass manufacturing inherently allows for better value to be delivered at greater scale, which tends to occur at the lower end of the price range. Beyond a certain point you're paying for prestige rather than lifespan. I've had the same wallet for 10 years. It cost me $16 and was made from recycled leather scraps (thanks, Phil's wallets!). I plan to use it at least another 10 years. Will the $115 wallet pushed in this article really last 7x longer than my scrap wallet? I doubt it.
- bthrn 3y ago
  It really depends what you mean by “optimal cost” and “better value”. For example, if you want something that’s handcrafted rather than made in a factory on the other side of the world, you have to pay for the skills and labor that go into that. Depending on what it is, it might not last longer - but could be a better value in other respects than simply cost. Not everything has to be about making widgets for the lowest amount of money possible.
  - ericpauley 3y ago
    Of course. If you change the requirements the decision space shifts too. With respect to the boots theorem optimal cost is specifically focused on long-term concrete utility per dollar. Fwiw I'd (very loosely) classify the points you're bringing under "prestige".
    - bthrn 3y ago
      > Fwiw I'd (very loosely) classify the points you're bringing under "prestige". If I'd like my clothes made and sourced ethically, or if I want to support a local business that makes leather goods rather than buying mass-produced ones from somewhere else -- I wouldn't say those scenarios are motivated by prestige, but by valuing people and the work they do. It's a bit unfortunate that some things like that are considered a luxury these days.
Veen 3y ago
But "buying for quality" and "buying for status" are different, and I don't think rich people conflate the two (or the people here). The person buying Louis Vuitton luggage (or whatever rich people buy these days) knows they are buying it for status among their similarly wealthy friends. Although, you also get counter-signaling among "old money" types, where it's seen as déclassé to try too hard; they wouldn't be seen dead with something as vulgar as Louis Vuitton luggage. However, I don't think this conversation is about them. The smart middle class family buys the best they can afford given their budget, but the less-smart family buys the cheapest 'Buy well, buy once' encourages the first approach.
lghh 3y ago
For the shoes example, there's also value in reducing waste. 10 pairs of rubber Crocs that you throw out every year create much more waste than 1 pair of 500 dollar leather boots that can be repaired and are much more environmentally friendly when they are eventually disposed of. 100% agree about the Corolla though.
- Cyph0n 3y ago
  Right, because reducing waste is what people buying $500 shoes are worried about.
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  Corolla is a terrible example. It’s not a nice car to actually drive compared to almost any other. In that price range: Subaru and Honda will be as reliable and much better cars.
  - LargeDiggerNick 3y ago
    False. Corollas are one of the best cars ever made.
  - rationalist 3y ago
    I had a relatively recent Corolla. I put some leather seat covers and floor liners in it and it was nice.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Waste disposal is usually a flat rate though, so it doesn't really matter how much waste you produce in financial terms.
- waboremo 3y ago
  I'm not so sure about this comparison even. There are multiple factors at play that you're just assuming, that the $500 leather boots are going to be worn for 10 years to be equivalent to the crocs, but I'm not sure that's the norm. Excluding those who have the means easily for $500 leather boots, who likely will just buy more of them to rotate (thus creating waste). Surely someone who spends $500 on leather boots is also going to care about their status, and therefore might get them repaired far more often. These repairs, while likely less wasteful than full-on recycling, have costs attributed to them. It costs to produce the goods required to repair. These goods often aren't super sustainable products either. With these factors in mind, is the comparison equal? Can we absolutely stand by the idea that paying for $500 leather boots will be better for the environment and you for 10 years? Which is why when making these comparisons we should really get into the nitty gritty details, otherwise we're just handwaving a bunch of things and making assumptions to justify our position. By doing so, we'll be able to make better choices with proper information rather than shifting the burden of environmental impact elsewhere (to a repair shop or shoe makers, etc). Note, this is not a defense of crocs vs leather boots. The product categories are just throwaway examples.
Swizec 3y ago
> Corolla etc. Fun way to think about it (borrowed from James May): A Toyota Corolla is higher quality than a Rolls Royce. Because Toyota makes 10,000,000 vehicles per year. Rolls makes only 6,000. Meaning Toyota is better at making cars just by virtue of having 4 orders of magnitude more practice.
- CPLX 3y ago
  Except that’s not true. So…
  - vGPU 3y ago
    RR is made by BMW these days. So it’s almost certain to be awful.
    - CPLX 3y ago
      BMWs are also higher quality than Corollas.
      - hansvm 3y ago
        They have more features, but they break down a ton more often. By all means, if you want ventilated seats then you can get a higher end BMW, but that's a different metric from quality.
        KerrAvon 3y ago
        You can get ventilated seats on Hondas and Hyundais. You don’t need to pay high-end BMW money.
        CPLX 3y ago
        No they don’t. BMW is consistently in the top 5 rankings for reliability. They’re just better cars, made to more exacting standards with higher quality materials and better engineering and features.
silverlake 3y ago
From the documentary Idiocracy: Idiocracy director Mike Judge revealed that they went with Crocs both because they were cheap and that "no one would ever wear them." To the surprise of Judge and Idiocracy's wardrobe department, by the time the film came out after a delay, Crocs were all over the place.” In fact you could save more money by wrapping your feet in used burlap sacks. Just need to be creative.
- LargeDiggerNick 3y ago
  Right because Hollywood is great to look to for advice on how to buy low cost high quality items....
  - klyrs 3y ago
    Idiocracy is exceptionally prophetic. And we've still got people seriously evaluating if GPT can be better than your doctor.
    - LargeDiggerNick 3y ago
      "Exceptionally" I think you might be thinking its more prophetic than it actually is.
      - klyrs 3y ago
        It's more prophetic than the overwhelming majority of futuristicistic movies. Exceptionally does not equal extremely.
        nerdchum 3y ago
        you should write a blog post or something about it. I don't find it very prophetic but would like to hear other people's opinions.
        klyrs 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
comfypotato 3y ago
Crocs are not utilitarian (no structure or support for physical activity) and they aren’t appropriate in the wider spectrum a nice pair of shoes are. I settled on some classic Vans after a deep internet dive signaled that they’re the most popular among homeless people for being durable and comfortable without being too expensive. They look fine, and I have a lot of freedom regarding when to replace them. I’m very happy with the decision actually. As an added benefit, they’re a welcome donation to the homeless if I don’t completely wear them out (which is basically impossible). $500 sounds about right to me for the leather equivalent of the Vans. By the time you’ve accounted for durability and comfort without sacrificing appearances (and done it such that they can be attractively resoled) you’ll spend around that much. I don’t have a wardrobe to match leather shoes, but the logic holds here if I did. You don’t have to be rich to daily drive a single pair of nice shoes, and the author’s tone didn’t strike me as snobbish or smug. It’s just a different attitude. Lots of more expensive clothing gets you added features, better style, and better comfort than Kirkland. Expensive athleisure brands like Lululemon and Alo, for example, have pockets in better places and are more attractive than their Kirkland equivalents. The directly equivalent spending on the two makes for a smaller wardrobe that gets worn more often. If you have a ChatGPT Plus subscription, have a quick discussion with it about fashion. Its training is not among content from the rich but rather the internet at large, and even it will tell you that fewer nicer fashion choices make a better wardrobe than more less expensive pieces.
- freggeln 3y ago
  Would you mind sharing some resources from your deep internet dive (if you still have them at hand) or maybe even just sharing the Vans model? Thanks.
  - comfypotato 3y ago
    The dive was mostly archived Reddit threads. https://www.vans.com/en-us/shoes-c00081/sk8-hi-canvas-shoe-pvn000ts9bj4 https://www.vans.com/en-us/shoes-c00081/sk8-hi-canvas-shoe-p...
- nerdchum 3y ago
  Every pair of vans I bought fell apart in a year. I think they used to be quality back in the day before they got popular and shipped their manufacturing overseas. I've never seen a homeless person in vans but that's just me.
chrismcb 3y ago
Crocs aren't shoes. I understand what you are trying to say. But that was a lousy comparison. Even if you consider Crocs shoes, you typically won't wear them the same place you will wear Aldens.
- nerdchum 3y ago
  this is false. people wear Aldens all the time and people wear crocs all the time to all kinds of different functions and events.
lobocinza 3y ago
The other end of this is companies manufacturing products that are questionably eco-friendly and certainly less durable leading to a worse off situation to everyone except them.
SaintSeiya 3y ago
This a 1000 times. Those kind of articles are just rich people showing off, seeking attention, they must have indeed a miserably or fake life to even think that other cares about the brand of their shoes or mattresses (except other equally unhappy people. A shoe is a shoe, a mattress is a mattress, a sofa is a sofa. There's more important things in life that those details.
acconrad 3y ago
Sure a lot of stuff is high status crap (like the LV weekender bag that was torn apart here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EktumN7N5l8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EktumN7N5l8). But your comparisons don't factor in total cost of ownership and usage, and in fact many quality brands you do pay up for quality and better cost of ownership. I can wear crocs at home. I would look disrespectful wearing them to a funeral. I can wear Alden anywhere though I might be overdressed for many occassions. Aldens can be resoled and repaired and can last decades, the cost-per-wear can be very low. And many models of Aldens can be sold for a pretty penny (as an example these https://www.ebay.com/itm/394665864763 https://www.ebay.com/itm/394665864763 still go for nearly $300 even after years of wear). So if you bought Aldens new for $500 and wore for a decade and sold for $300 your cost per wear would be lower than that of the crocs. You would also be doing better for the environment by reusing the clothing and requiring less total material for your feet over a lifetime. This also applies to a very few select watchmakers (and in fact increase in value). A Rolex or Patek Philippe has essentially beat inflation and would be considered a smart investment that made you money even while you wear it. A G-Shock would not offer similar returns. Actually a lot of quality clothing can be like this. I thrifted a Tom Ford shirt for $40, wore it for a decade to weddings and funerals, and then sold it for $150. Certain makers are heavily discounted on second hand but retain their value. Borrelli shirts are some of the best on the planet. Would I pay retail? No. But you can buy them, wear them, and sell them second hand and pay virtually 0 to wear them over time. Furniture is one where I've yet to find cheaper furniture paying off. A lot of particleboard furniture is awful. And it's all over Wayfair. The stuff I've had passed down or that I've bought that's lasted decades are all from North Carolina furniture makers. Not all of that stuff is expensive or high status but it is well made. Expensive things are not always bad. Oftentimes the price is not justified. But it's not exclusive.
- nerdchum 3y ago
  I wear Crocs everywhere except for the few times I need to wear a suit. Resoling a pair of Alden's is easily 100 to 200 bucks whether to do it through the factory or through a cobbler. So no savings there.

CPLX 3y ago

Pretty on the nose. I think even more accurate is that quality/longevity and price are almost completely decoupled. Spending more doesn’t guarantee higher quality it mostly gets you exceptional graphic design and deftly nested packaging that makes you feel good when you open it. But it’s not like all the cheap stuff is better. A Rolex is an incredible engineering marvel and is in fact very high quality and durable. So are Festool tools, and so on. But like so is G-shock and a random and difficult to pin down subset of Harbor Freight. The broader point is that none of this really makes a fucking difference most of the discussion is just people preening about their choices instead of admitting it’s mostly a roll of the dice. And the old stuff wasn’t “better” it was just different. When I was a kid in the 70’s and 80’s garages were full of shoddy junk from the 50’s and 60’s. That stuff is just all gone right now.

nerdchum 3y ago
Yeah completely agree that price is decoupled from quality nowadays and it's pretty random. Price seems to be based a lot more on marketing and brand saturation than quality. And quality brands get bought up all the time and the new company will coast on the brand while outsourcing manufacturing to the lowest bidder. And you can't trust reviews with affiliate marketing around. So pretty much the only thing to do to identify quality is to experiment or share info with people you trust. I've wasted a ton of money on shitty products on the way to identifying quality products. I'm not even railing against status. I bought a pair of Alan Edmonds specifically for job interviews to signal status but I wear LL Bean shoes and Crocs the rest of the time. Also, there's other factors besides just durability and status. There's aesthetics, variable utility, ease of replacement, warranty availability, price, etc. I hate shopping so I think alot about this haha
- DubiousPusher 3y ago
  In the world of fashion perhaps. In the world of tools, absolutely not.
  - nerdchum 3y ago
    In human society its arguable that fashion is a tool of communication. At least thats how I have to justify it to myself because I hate being forced to participate in it but we all are constantly being judged on how we look.
    - DubiousPusher 3y ago
      My reply was strictly in regards to > Yeah completely agree that price is decoupled from quality nowadays In the world of physic tools, price and quality are highly coupled. To your other points, I honestly think fashion is very rewarding and healthy so long as you are focused on making yourself look good to you. And I agree, some fashion conformity is unavoidable. Especially depending upon your career field.
sanderjd 3y ago
The area in which this drives me the craziest is furniture. I have no idea how to find high quality durable furniture. Price signals definitely aren't it, but I have no idea what signals I can look for, or where to go to find them.
- nerdchum 3y ago
  Furniture is INSANE! Ive never felt like I was in a more skeezy situation than mattress shopping.
- frutiger 3y ago
  Design Within Reach, Herman Miller, Room & Board, Blu Dot, ...
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Thanks this is really helpful. But how do I know what is or isn't junk at these retailers? None of the ones on this list have a showroom near me. And what goes in the ... ?
- ticviking 3y ago
  You have to learn enough about how they are built and then haunt local consignment shops for good finds. It’s taken my wife and I years to slowly get pieces that will last the rest of our life.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    I have two young children, I don't have time to "haunt" anything. But before we had kids we tried this with consignment stores, would spend like a year looking for some simple piece of furniture, and end up with junk anyway.
- vGPU 3y ago
  In general: pick the heaviest ones.
msla 3y ago
> A Rolex is an incredible engineering marvel and is in fact very high quality and durable. But it's fundamentally worse at being a timepiece than a digital watch synchronized to an NTP time server.
- badpun 3y ago
  It's a Rube Goldberg machine.
- Our_Benefactors 3y ago
  This is a completely different device than a mechanical watch. Nobody cross shops GPS watches with a Rolex. Maybe a grand Seiko.
- CPLX 3y ago
  Not after a nuclear war.
  - Kirby64 3y ago
    Sure it is. Even a relatively poor quality Quartz watch is higher accuracy than a mechanical watch, without any sort of synchronization. Really good ones are accurate to one second per year. No need for NTP at all. If you're thinking about EMPs or something: well, I'd consider extremely accurate timekeeping to be the least of your concerns if no electronics work anymore...

mym1990 3y ago

I would say rich people who want to signal status would not get caught with those. But there are plenty of rich folks who want to fly under the radar, your millionaire next door types.

benmanns 3y ago

$50/$500 is a 10%/year yield, which is hard come by in any guaranteed investment. The Crocs will likely have no retained value, while the $500 shoes may be worth something after 10 years. However, that ignores the cost of maintaining a nice pair of shoes (both money and time) as one needs to clean, polish, and resole every so often. You might want shoes in two or three colors/styles, which would make the Crocs last 2-3x longer, same for the other shoes, but are you really going to want the same expensive shoes in 30 years? I think the higher end stuff that retains value and requires less maintenance might be a better example, like if someone is good at buying watches they could get a Rolex that appreciates in value and ends up costing them nothing vs a series of cheaper watches. Or compare to a $500 Apple Watch you replace every couple years. I don’t wear watches, though, and I’m not good at buying or selling them. Really, I think there are some expensive, durable goods that last longer and are cheaper you might think, but still more expensive once you take into account the maintenance and time value of money. But nice stuff is nice to have, and it’s helpful that you don’t have to replace it so often.

nerdchum 3y ago
Oh completely agree. My beef is with this smug patronizing attitude rich people have like theyre wise for buying expensive things that will last longer and the rest of us peons should learn from these wise sages. When thats not the case at all. You want to learn how to buy quality things look at a middle class family of four wearing big old granny Kirkland panties and driving a Subaru. Their overhead on purchases is low AND their returns are high.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mathgeek 3y ago
> The Crocs will likely have no retained value, while the $500 shoes may be worth something after 10 years. This is the core of the “secret” to wearing high quality shoes at a low cost. Buy good used shoes and get them resoled as necessary. E.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/comments/1jhp8o/a_ridiculously_comprehensive_guide_to_buying_used/ https://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/comments/1jhp8o/a...

sanderjd 3y ago

The way I would put the Crocs thing is that they are not versatile. Maybe you could live a whole life with a pair of Crocs and a pair of well made leather shoes. But in that situation a minimalism extremist might ask: what are the Crocs for? You can wear the leather shoes around the house but you can't wear the Crocs to a wedding. But I think your point is generally true, though I'm not convinced it is very responsive to this specific article. I didn't get much preachiness from this article, but maybe it was there, or maybe you are familiar with this person's other writing, I dunno. My take is that "minimalism" is indeed often a status game as you say, but that it also has good insights for the rest of us who aren't interested in those games, but do feel this sense of having too much junk cluttering up our lives. I'm far from a "true" minimalist, but reading stuff like this over the years has totally impacted my thinking. When thinking about buying things now, I do think about whether I could spend a little more for something I'll be able to use a lot more. Or even ignoring price differences either way, I just evaluate things from this perspective of durability. And I think that's good.

lumb63 3y ago

This isn’t a totally fair comparison. When people buy shoes, their criteria isn’t normally as low as “covers my feet”. They have a specific style they want, a specific material, and will shop amongst shoes that fit that description. Crocs and dress shoes are not interchangeable to a lot of people. A better comparison is to look at, for instance, Johnston and Murphy vs. Alden. Then you get a more fair comparison. For instance, one has welted soles and so they can be replaced without changing out the upper. Those soles are leather and provide excellent comfort. One uses full grain leather uppers, one does not. Everyone doesn’t need those, but if you’re someone who is wearing dress shoes to the office every day, it may be worth the benefit. You also don’t have to worry about replacing the shoe every year (though you do have to maintain it).

nerdchum 3y ago
Agree. Theres alot of factors involved in buying anything. So we need to stop acting like we have great wisdom for "Paying more for quality" when in reality status and fashion had as much to do with the purchase as well.
- helmholtz 3y ago
  No, I think we need to stop contriving obviously skewed examples like Aldens vs Crocs. Boots vs shitty holey rubber sandals isn't a good comparison. Maybe compare backpack, or suits, or something along those lines.
  - nerdchum 3y ago
    "obvioudly skewed" how? Its pretty much the perfect example imo
    - helmholtz 3y ago
      Aldens vs cheapo 20 dollar amazon boots would be a better comparison. You ain't wearing Crocs with a suit my man.

ericpauley 3y ago

Completely agree. People love to tout the boots theory but the reality is that the people who claim this are often far beyond the point of optimal cost. Mass manufacturing inherently allows for better value to be delivered at greater scale, which tends to occur at the lower end of the price range. Beyond a certain point you're paying for prestige rather than lifespan. I've had the same wallet for 10 years. It cost me $16 and was made from recycled leather scraps (thanks, Phil's wallets!). I plan to use it at least another 10 years. Will the $115 wallet pushed in this article really last 7x longer than my scrap wallet? I doubt it.

bthrn 3y ago
It really depends what you mean by “optimal cost” and “better value”. For example, if you want something that’s handcrafted rather than made in a factory on the other side of the world, you have to pay for the skills and labor that go into that. Depending on what it is, it might not last longer - but could be a better value in other respects than simply cost. Not everything has to be about making widgets for the lowest amount of money possible.
- ericpauley 3y ago
  Of course. If you change the requirements the decision space shifts too. With respect to the boots theorem optimal cost is specifically focused on long-term concrete utility per dollar. Fwiw I'd (very loosely) classify the points you're bringing under "prestige".
  - bthrn 3y ago
    > Fwiw I'd (very loosely) classify the points you're bringing under "prestige". If I'd like my clothes made and sourced ethically, or if I want to support a local business that makes leather goods rather than buying mass-produced ones from somewhere else -- I wouldn't say those scenarios are motivated by prestige, but by valuing people and the work they do. It's a bit unfortunate that some things like that are considered a luxury these days.

Veen 3y ago

But "buying for quality" and "buying for status" are different, and I don't think rich people conflate the two (or the people here). The person buying Louis Vuitton luggage (or whatever rich people buy these days) knows they are buying it for status among their similarly wealthy friends. Although, you also get counter-signaling among "old money" types, where it's seen as déclassé to try too hard; they wouldn't be seen dead with something as vulgar as Louis Vuitton luggage. However, I don't think this conversation is about them. The smart middle class family buys the best they can afford given their budget, but the less-smart family buys the cheapest 'Buy well, buy once' encourages the first approach.

lghh 3y ago

For the shoes example, there's also value in reducing waste. 10 pairs of rubber Crocs that you throw out every year create much more waste than 1 pair of 500 dollar leather boots that can be repaired and are much more environmentally friendly when they are eventually disposed of. 100% agree about the Corolla though.

Cyph0n 3y ago
Right, because reducing waste is what people buying $500 shoes are worried about.
KerrAvon 3y ago
Corolla is a terrible example. It’s not a nice car to actually drive compared to almost any other. In that price range: Subaru and Honda will be as reliable and much better cars.
- LargeDiggerNick 3y ago
  False. Corollas are one of the best cars ever made.
- rationalist 3y ago
  I had a relatively recent Corolla. I put some leather seat covers and floor liners in it and it was nice.
moffkalast 3y ago
Waste disposal is usually a flat rate though, so it doesn't really matter how much waste you produce in financial terms.
waboremo 3y ago
I'm not so sure about this comparison even. There are multiple factors at play that you're just assuming, that the $500 leather boots are going to be worn for 10 years to be equivalent to the crocs, but I'm not sure that's the norm. Excluding those who have the means easily for $500 leather boots, who likely will just buy more of them to rotate (thus creating waste). Surely someone who spends $500 on leather boots is also going to care about their status, and therefore might get them repaired far more often. These repairs, while likely less wasteful than full-on recycling, have costs attributed to them. It costs to produce the goods required to repair. These goods often aren't super sustainable products either. With these factors in mind, is the comparison equal? Can we absolutely stand by the idea that paying for $500 leather boots will be better for the environment and you for 10 years? Which is why when making these comparisons we should really get into the nitty gritty details, otherwise we're just handwaving a bunch of things and making assumptions to justify our position. By doing so, we'll be able to make better choices with proper information rather than shifting the burden of environmental impact elsewhere (to a repair shop or shoe makers, etc). Note, this is not a defense of crocs vs leather boots. The product categories are just throwaway examples.

Swizec 3y ago

> Corolla etc. Fun way to think about it (borrowed from James May): A Toyota Corolla is higher quality than a Rolls Royce. Because Toyota makes 10,000,000 vehicles per year. Rolls makes only 6,000. Meaning Toyota is better at making cars just by virtue of having 4 orders of magnitude more practice.

CPLX 3y ago
Except that’s not true. So…
- vGPU 3y ago
  RR is made by BMW these days. So it’s almost certain to be awful.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    BMWs are also higher quality than Corollas.
    - hansvm 3y ago
      They have more features, but they break down a ton more often. By all means, if you want ventilated seats then you can get a higher end BMW, but that's a different metric from quality.
      - KerrAvon 3y ago
        You can get ventilated seats on Hondas and Hyundais. You don’t need to pay high-end BMW money.
      - CPLX 3y ago
        No they don’t. BMW is consistently in the top 5 rankings for reliability. They’re just better cars, made to more exacting standards with higher quality materials and better engineering and features.

silverlake 3y ago

From the documentary Idiocracy: Idiocracy director Mike Judge revealed that they went with Crocs both because they were cheap and that "no one would ever wear them." To the surprise of Judge and Idiocracy's wardrobe department, by the time the film came out after a delay, Crocs were all over the place.” In fact you could save more money by wrapping your feet in used burlap sacks. Just need to be creative.

LargeDiggerNick 3y ago
Right because Hollywood is great to look to for advice on how to buy low cost high quality items....
- klyrs 3y ago
  Idiocracy is exceptionally prophetic. And we've still got people seriously evaluating if GPT can be better than your doctor.
  - LargeDiggerNick 3y ago
    "Exceptionally" I think you might be thinking its more prophetic than it actually is.
    - klyrs 3y ago
      It's more prophetic than the overwhelming majority of futuristicistic movies. Exceptionally does not equal extremely.
      - nerdchum 3y ago
        you should write a blog post or something about it. I don't find it very prophetic but would like to hear other people's opinions.
        klyrs 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

comfypotato 3y ago

Crocs are not utilitarian (no structure or support for physical activity) and they aren’t appropriate in the wider spectrum a nice pair of shoes are. I settled on some classic Vans after a deep internet dive signaled that they’re the most popular among homeless people for being durable and comfortable without being too expensive. They look fine, and I have a lot of freedom regarding when to replace them. I’m very happy with the decision actually. As an added benefit, they’re a welcome donation to the homeless if I don’t completely wear them out (which is basically impossible). $500 sounds about right to me for the leather equivalent of the Vans. By the time you’ve accounted for durability and comfort without sacrificing appearances (and done it such that they can be attractively resoled) you’ll spend around that much. I don’t have a wardrobe to match leather shoes, but the logic holds here if I did. You don’t have to be rich to daily drive a single pair of nice shoes, and the author’s tone didn’t strike me as snobbish or smug. It’s just a different attitude. Lots of more expensive clothing gets you added features, better style, and better comfort than Kirkland. Expensive athleisure brands like Lululemon and Alo, for example, have pockets in better places and are more attractive than their Kirkland equivalents. The directly equivalent spending on the two makes for a smaller wardrobe that gets worn more often. If you have a ChatGPT Plus subscription, have a quick discussion with it about fashion. Its training is not among content from the rich but rather the internet at large, and even it will tell you that fewer nicer fashion choices make a better wardrobe than more less expensive pieces.

freggeln 3y ago
Would you mind sharing some resources from your deep internet dive (if you still have them at hand) or maybe even just sharing the Vans model? Thanks.
- comfypotato 3y ago
  The dive was mostly archived Reddit threads. https://www.vans.com/en-us/shoes-c00081/sk8-hi-canvas-shoe-pvn000ts9bj4 https://www.vans.com/en-us/shoes-c00081/sk8-hi-canvas-shoe-p...
nerdchum 3y ago
Every pair of vans I bought fell apart in a year. I think they used to be quality back in the day before they got popular and shipped their manufacturing overseas. I've never seen a homeless person in vans but that's just me.

chrismcb 3y ago

Crocs aren't shoes. I understand what you are trying to say. But that was a lousy comparison. Even if you consider Crocs shoes, you typically won't wear them the same place you will wear Aldens.

nerdchum 3y ago
this is false. people wear Aldens all the time and people wear crocs all the time to all kinds of different functions and events.

lobocinza 3y ago

The other end of this is companies manufacturing products that are questionably eco-friendly and certainly less durable leading to a worse off situation to everyone except them.

SaintSeiya 3y ago

This a 1000 times. Those kind of articles are just rich people showing off, seeking attention, they must have indeed a miserably or fake life to even think that other cares about the brand of their shoes or mattresses (except other equally unhappy people. A shoe is a shoe, a mattress is a mattress, a sofa is a sofa. There's more important things in life that those details.

acconrad 3y ago

Sure a lot of stuff is high status crap (like the LV weekender bag that was torn apart here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EktumN7N5l8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EktumN7N5l8). But your comparisons don't factor in total cost of ownership and usage, and in fact many quality brands you do pay up for quality and better cost of ownership. I can wear crocs at home. I would look disrespectful wearing them to a funeral. I can wear Alden anywhere though I might be overdressed for many occassions. Aldens can be resoled and repaired and can last decades, the cost-per-wear can be very low. And many models of Aldens can be sold for a pretty penny (as an example these https://www.ebay.com/itm/394665864763 https://www.ebay.com/itm/394665864763 still go for nearly $300 even after years of wear). So if you bought Aldens new for $500 and wore for a decade and sold for $300 your cost per wear would be lower than that of the crocs. You would also be doing better for the environment by reusing the clothing and requiring less total material for your feet over a lifetime. This also applies to a very few select watchmakers (and in fact increase in value). A Rolex or Patek Philippe has essentially beat inflation and would be considered a smart investment that made you money even while you wear it. A G-Shock would not offer similar returns. Actually a lot of quality clothing can be like this. I thrifted a Tom Ford shirt for $40, wore it for a decade to weddings and funerals, and then sold it for $150. Certain makers are heavily discounted on second hand but retain their value. Borrelli shirts are some of the best on the planet. Would I pay retail? No. But you can buy them, wear them, and sell them second hand and pay virtually 0 to wear them over time. Furniture is one where I've yet to find cheaper furniture paying off. A lot of particleboard furniture is awful. And it's all over Wayfair. The stuff I've had passed down or that I've bought that's lasted decades are all from North Carolina furniture makers. Not all of that stuff is expensive or high status but it is well made. Expensive things are not always bad. Oftentimes the price is not justified. But it's not exclusive.

nerdchum 3y ago
I wear Crocs everywhere except for the few times I need to wear a suit. Resoling a pair of Alden's is easily 100 to 200 bucks whether to do it through the factory or through a cobbler. So no savings there.