Hacker News Reader

Comment by st-keller | Hacker News Reader

Interesting - didn‘t notice that. I‘m only buying quality stuff and stick to it as long a possible. Most of my cloth are years old. I’m buying a new iPhone if the one i have doesn’t get any updates anymore, and furniture has to outlive me. I always thought this is reasonable and that everyone would do it that way: Always having high quality stuff, saving money instead of wasting it by continuously buying cheap things! Seem‘s like i’m really out of touch with the world.

View on HN

I tend to follow what I call the "toolbox rule," mostly because I've used it the most with tools. If I find I need something, I'll buy a cheap version of it, even if the cheap version is noticeably lower quality (which it almost always is). Then, if I use said cheap version enough that it either breaks or is no longer useful to me anymore, I'll buy a nicer one. It helps me justify the greater expense and demonstrates the need for it.

I've done this with umbrellas, camelbaks, tents, ski equipment, but mostly, as stated before, tools.

I think that's smart, on paper at least.

What so you do about the cheap tools that turn out so bad that they cause damage?

For example, you get a cheap screwdriver, it breaks while you use it, and you end up making a hole in the cabinet you were trying to fix.

While the general approach sounds sane, it seems to me there are a lot of cases where going for the cheap version could cost a lot in collateral damage.

That's not a remotely reasonable example. Cheap screwdrivers will fail to engage properly, wearing out fasteners, and they will break when being used as a lever or punch. But even the cheapest 100% pure Chinesium screwdriver is not going to break in the course of assembling a cabinet.

Yes, that was just an example to illustrate the "what if your cheap X causes collateral damage", which is a real thing.

Imagine you get a cheap drone for videography. It fails mid flight, falls and kills someone.

Bad tools can have consequences. What does parent commenter do about this?

I think if your tools are causing an inferior outcome, you are likely already working at a higher level of craft expectation and wouldn't be buying cheap tools in the first place. If your tools are for a basic handyman toolbox you're likely to never need very high quality and expensive tools are a straight up waste of money.

This was my standard mode for years until I had children. I remember a time I stood in the tool aisle at the hardware store considering the cheap tool and the nicer, name-brand tool, and went with what seemed to be the higher quality item because it may last to be passed down. I have many "vintage" tools in my tool boxes from my father and father-in-law that seem to be indestructible.

> pure Chinesium screwdriver is not going to break in the course of assembling a cabinet.

Oh, how naive you can be? https://old.reddit.com/r/Chinesium/

This really resonates. I've thrown away a lot of money, speculating on what future me will need.

The counter approach to this is buying the branded version, and then if you're not using it as often as you thought you would, to sell it. It depends on a lot of factors such as age, condition, the product type etc but you can often sell branded products for 2/3 of what you paid for them on eBay, whereas unbranded or cheap products are very difficult to resell.

This is my approach and I generally enjoy nice products until I don’t: buy secondhand on eBay/CraigsList and sell it when/if I don’t need it anymore. The only problem is I notice I don’t feel a sense of “ownership” for most items I buy, it’s not really mine I’m just renting it until I sell it. I think this is largely fine, there are some items I intend to own forever (some film cameras and pens, couple tools) but I wonder if I’m using some of these products differently because I’d this mentality.

For me, this only makes sense for some products. I will do it with reasonably inexpensive, short-lived products where I'm not sure how much use or wear they will get (e.g., drill bits).

But I will do my research and get the better product (which is not necessarily the more expensive product) in these cases:

- I already know that I will use it a lot and wear it out if it is not good. (An example of a tool that falls into this category, for me, would be a drill or a garden hose.)

- The poor quality variant won't (or won't just) wear out, but it will give me worse results and is barely fit for purpose. (An example would be a mitre saw or a sewing machine, where cheaper ones are inaccurate/finicky and ruin projects.)

This is essentially the Boots Theory, coined my Terry Pratchett. The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... 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. Men at Arms. p. 32.

Most people don’t have the option to buy quality goods in the first place, so they end up in the money sink trap. Constantly buying replacements for cheaply produced goods.

It only takes buying the same thing 2 or 3 times before it’s more expensive than the quality options anyway.

I think that's true. I also think that many people don't know the difference. I also think people have bought the expensive stuff and it end's up being just as cheap, but had fancy marketing. I also think executives chasing a bonus will take a quality brand and cheapen it for higher profits.

An example, I bought a DeWalt electric pole trimmer. It was expensive, but I bought it because I wanted something that lasted. It broke after a couple of weeks and sits collecting dust. DeWalt used to be known for top quality stuff that contractors use. The brand is now diluted and probably crap.

It really makes me hesitant to buy much anything I don't absolutely need.

No, you are doing the rich man thing; the rich man can afford to buy a $20 pair of boots which lasts 5 years. The poor man can only afford the low-quality $6 pair which lasts a year.

I know this doesn’t change your point but adding a 0 would make it match reality a bit more.

And then multiplying it by 2.

Maybe, but are they rich because they do it, or the other way around? Buying quality stuff is possible without being rich: Most of my friends in school had their fourth walkman before i had my first one (worked for 30+ years btw).

Show me the boots that are 3.3x more expensive but last 5x as long. When buying new, it's very rare that buying expensive actually saves you money.

There’s definitely a point of diminishing returns, but boots from Ross can cost about $45, while a $300 pair of red wings would last a lifetime, if maintained properly. A pair of $1000 boots are definitely beyond that line and will also last a lifetime, while costing 3.3x more

There are several brands of boots like this. I have a pair of Red Wing boots that I purchased new in 2013 (I don’t remember the price but today they are $350). Unlike most other modern sneakers or boots, they are made so that the soles be replaced, which I have done once for $100. Other than this, the only consumable part is shoelaces. With maintenance of the leather, it is completely expected for these boots to outlive me.

$350/3.3 is $106. Do you expect these boots to last 5x longer than $106 boots?

Mine did; I'm still wearing them (I bought mine in 2016, and they haven't needed resoled yet) and the $100 boots I was wearing (US Navy authorized) would barely last a year. So for the $300 or so I paid then I got 6 years hard use out of them, and I'm still using them for stuff now that I don't wear them for work.

I have other pairs of dress shoes from Red Wing that are similar; I doubt I'll EVER need to replace them.

Note: the boots are style 2412, the shoes are a variety but the oldest are called MIL-1 Congress boots (Chelsea). I have a few pairs of a different style dress shoe from the heritage line as well.

What were the $100 boots? Do you wear your current boots an equal amount?

Bates and Belleville, and at least as much.

I understand your point, but realize some of us really do live in these boots and have found some that make a huge difference.

The only (and big) negative for the Red Wings was the break in process. It was protracted and brutal. Once broken in they've been wonderful though.

Also, I'm giving the boots too much credit. Just looked them up and the Bellevilles I wore (800 ST) just before the Red Wings are $230 today. I replaced them yearly because they were coming apart.

For hiking and climbing I wear La Sportiva and they have been excellent as well, as another brand to look at.

Google search for that brand reveals:

> Our boot regulations and contracts severely limit our options to only a few very expensive-and often ineffective-models.

So these are just overpriced boots. My main point is that OP is pushing a narrative about how rich people somehow save money with their expensive purchases, which is complete nonsense. They buy luxury products which are more expensive in the long run.

$106 would put someone at some okayish timberlands, which definitely degrade quick. Maybe not a year, but definitely 3 years max

Given that the $100 Timberlands only last a year or two, the Red Wings already have lasted 5X longer.

$300/3.3 is $90. Do you think those boots will last 5x longer than $90 boots?

I can't speak for his boots, but my Loake Sedbergh still look brand new after 2 years continuous use and with minimal care.

I give them a 10 second clean before use and 30 second clean + some polish after.

https://www.loake.com/product/sedbergh-black-grain/

What boots cost 3.3x these and will last 5x as long: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Brahma-Men-s-Combustion-6-Steel-T...

Looking at the reviews: Most of them in that range.

The top review literally says it's better to buy these over and over when they wear out vs more expensive boots.

Finding $99.99 boots that last over a year isn't hard. And yet, yes, some people would apparently rather buy $30 ones every couple of months.

Scale accordingly for variance in usage and quality for the ones claiming 2w vs 1y.

I have worn the same 3 pairs of wesco boots for 25 years, and expect them to last at least another 25. working alot of that time as a metal fabricator. 1 is one its last legs, 1 is ok, and 1 is nearly new.

I hope they're still in business.

No problem!

I purchased a pair of Chelsea Boots from Churches of London in the late 90s and they still look great today!

I’ve had new soles a few times, and recent had a partial reconstruction; liners, pull tags and so on.

But I’ve had them 25 years and the actual boot leather is still fantastic!

Looks like Church’s was acquired by Prada USA corp in 1999. They may or may not be the same quality now.

Don’t fixate on the boots. You will probably not find boots for $6 neither. The point is about availability of options, not about how much a boot costs or lasts. See Pratchett quote above.

I like the way Terry Pratchett put this in Men At Arms:

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.

https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots...

Oh so that’s where I remember that from. Thanks! Mr Pratchett was a gift to humanity.

DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT A MAN IS NOT DEAD WHILE HIS NAME IS STILL SPOKEN?

(I know this wasn't spoken by DEATH but it seemed appropriate)

For a true DEATH quote:

‘DON’T THINK OF IT AS DYING,’ said Death. ‘JUST THINK OF IT AS LEAVING EARLY TO AVOID THE RUSH.’

Ironically enough, the last sarcastic clause about being out of touch is true.

Do you expect people who have the means to flagellate themselves with cheap stuff to satisfy you? Or simply waste money buying the best of everything first time?

I don’t understand this comment. Flagellation is not my thing, I’m good, thank you.

> I‘m only buying quality stuff and stick to it as long a possible. Most of my cloth are years old.

> I’m buying a new iPhone if the one i have doesn’t get any updates anymore

There have been many cases of Apple deploying planned obsolescence - intentionally crippling devices to get people to buy new models. So I wouldn't call Apple products that 'quality stuff'.

I base decisions on quality products based on how good they function, how long they last, and how easy and straightforward they are to repair yourself. Apple checks absolutely none of those boxes.

I do this since I can afford doing that. In the past when I needed anything I had to calculate what I could afford, now I can look at everything with a long term aspect. I also have the time to invest in extensive product research.

I also spend like half on food since I buy in bulk and mostly directly from farmers. But realistically who can afford paying hundreds of dollars for a pack of meat today? Like in right now without missing the money elsewhere. I am sure the majority can't. (Maybe different on here)

> keeping a phone if the one I have doesn't get any updates anymore This is actually a nice way of knowing when to change phone

And it’s fun too: The new phone is usually way better than the old one! The only downside is, that for 2 out of 4-5 years, the quality of my fotos are not state-of-the-art.

I subscribe to the buy once cry once philosophy. Meaning bite the bullet and buy quality. My wife is finally coming around after we've had to replace items that she initially wanted to pinch pennies on.

Obviously doesn't apply to stuff you know you will seldom use.

Well I think this all makes sense but people don’t generally do it because 1 high quality furniture item is more expensive upfront than the first cheap item. People with no money go for the cheap one then are trapped in the cycle of replacing it every few years.

How do you go about finding quality furniture?

Solid wood is an easy answer. Buy used and it will be much cheaper. Restoring worn wood is easy and it's a nice weekend project.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com