4 ms·
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
by 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 agoWould 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 agoThe 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 agoEvery 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.
- comfypotato 3y agoThe Sk8 Hi, or whatever it is, is the only pair of shoes I wear aside from some rain boots. They show little sign of wear after two years. I’ve also had an interesting and and slightly uncomfortable interaction with a homeless person saying “nice old school kicks” and giving me a high five. So my anecdotal data definitely holds up. Perhaps it’s the model. I also have a musician friend who’s been wearing the same pair of the same model for 10 years including a tour.
- nerdchum 3y agoInteresting. Im extremely hard on shoes so maybe its just me but I quit buying vans because I just would utterly destroy them in a year. My anecdata and your anecdata disagree. They need shoe reliability studies like they have with cars.
- crimsontech 3y agoThis even happens with expensive shoe brands. Loakes and Church’s are two such brands of shoes and Danner boots used to be decent too. Small shoe makers get a good reputation for quality then can’t keep up with demand and sell or partner with huge fashion companies which cut costs and offshore manufacturing while keeping the price high. Enshitification for shoes I guess.