Hacker News Reader

I think the idea is simplistic.

I have had the same $10 Wal-Mart cooking knife for a few years now. I'm sure it won't last more than a few more years. However, I bought it in poverty, and it will last me through poverty until I am making good money. Then I will buy a nice knife. There is nothing wrong with that.

Grad school is hard. It requires a lot of my time. A sewing kit is not cheap, and sewing is time-expensive. It is probably a net positive for me to throw out socks with holes in them, even if they cost me a few extra dollars over the course of three or four years.

I understand the urge to simplify. This is the land of Henry David Thoreau, after all. But sometimes it carries an assumed moral tone without justification. People feel it's right and don't question it. If nobody bought from Wal-Mart, people would have a lot less stuff. Some of that stuff is valuable, it saves people time and makes them more comfortable. Often cheap stuff is bridging a gap for folks caught in hard times. There is no need to moralize against them.

I'm not trying to moralize against anyone, nor am I trying to sound like I am in any way more "right" than someone who cannot afford to simplify as much. I only stated that the quality of these items these stores sell is generally terrible. You are entirely correct in your statement that places like Wal-Mart bridge a gap or present a temporary standby until someone can afford to "upgrade" and simplify.

As it stands, I'm likely going to be buying Ikea-produced furniture next year because I need to furnish an apartment cheaply, and I will only be keeping it for a couple years. I don't have the money or the means to buy furniture that will last me a long time at this point...but that doesn't mean I'm not thinking about what I am doing. I still am aiming to buy as little furniture as is necessary, and avoiding anything I can do without or simply don't need.

Yes, the idea is simplistic, but that is the point: if you can reduce and purchase quality then you should, and if you can't, at least have an awareness (and perhaps simplify another aspect of your life). I'm at a point where I can do both, but understandably, not everyone can do that.

It's all about reducing as much as you can, within your current circumstances. I'm not trying to say that you need to buy that $100 knife now, but in that case, perhaps you could do with one or two less forks (this isn't a literal example, mind you). Less waste and less worry, without entirely sacrificing comfort.

Before going to Ikea, I would try hitting a couple garage sales. Check out the Pennysaver magazine too.

I second this. You can sometimes get really great, durable, nice stuff for the same price or less than IKEA.

Or just search Craigslist's free or furniture section. You can often find people moving who would rather give away or sell their perfectly fine Ikea furniture than move it (probably because they're going to upgrade).

You're right that it does often come with a moral tone, but comments on HN aside, I think this guy's post is the least moralizing, least preachy, least "magical" article I've ever read on the subject. If you keep reading down to the comments, you'll find this backed up by his responses.

Which makes more sense: owning one quality $100 knife for 30+ years, or going through 10 $20 knives over the course of 30 years?

But living with 1 $100 knife requires certain behavioral changes. You must take care of it, sharpen it, transport it if you're moving.

Really, these are positive changes and I totally agree that we should be buying more durable goods and maintaining them. In fact, this behavioral change is why the government wants people to own homes. Home ownership gives you something that you need to maintain well rather than simply move away from/discard. It even gives you incentive to improve upon it as that trip to Home Depot can really improve things like the value of the home. People live in communities, improve their homes and communities, and take a real stake in improving things on that local level.

The government promotes home ownership because it's believed to decrease crime at a community level; I don't think they care about the amount of stuff that people buy. In fact, I'd wager that home ownership tends to increase a person's tendency to buy crap.

spot on for the behavioral changes

i'd use the $100 knife LESS than the $10 counterpart -> that's why i use $1 knifes because i cannot care less if it breaks

even google doesn't use sun blades, that's pretty telling

about home ownership, there are correlations that countries that are low on home ownership level(e.g, swiss) is richer than ones with high level (e.g, spain)

those examples are correlation, not causality ... anomaly i'd say and it's worth practicing

I don't think you can make the call on which knife you'd use till you had both. If you enjoy cooking or if you hate cooking but have to, the $100 knife will likely become your choice knife: preparing food becomes quicker and easier -- you're investment returns in time and peace of mind.

The $100 knife is also usually quite indestructible compared with the $10 counterpart. Even a $100 knife in the poorest care is salvageable with a professional sharpening.

that's it, $100 knife is wonderful till you lost it or break it

$10 knifes, you can afford to have spares

another example, i no longer use mechanical pencil because it betrayed me so many times (i can't see if there's extra lead inside)

transparent mech pencil is better, but i often forget to bring extra leads :(

that's why i buy 96 counts pencils for $5 ... the lead is visible, it never fails me

and no, i don't bring sharpener (you can always break the pencil and 'sharpen' the lead against rough surfaces)

i bring 5 sharpened pencils instead and put the rest in various places

although it's redundant (to ensure reliability), it's simpler and i'm much happier

"everything I own has to be packed away in a storage unit at the end of the school year. Therefore, the less I own, the less I have to store, and the better off I am. I've been working to get rid of a lot of things I don't need (how much clothing do I really need? Electronics? Trinkets?) and avoiding buying new things."

Well said. Whenever I've had the luxury of living somewhere for an extended period of time I've accumulated things, despite all efforts to the contrary. It's certainly less wasteful to save that half-used roll of wrapping paper than to buy another in 11 months, but it comes at the cost of having to keep it somewhere, and the need to be at least minimally aware of it. Before you know it, you've got to have a box for the wrapping paper rolls, and a closet in which to keep the box, and then you put other stuff in the closet, and....

When I moved to San Francisco, I got rid of everything that couldn't fit in one of those door-to-door moving crates. It was a cathartic exercise, and I've been surprised that I haven't missed anything that I eliminated. There's a lot to be said for throwing away everything you own to make a journey; it lets you focus on the things that actually matter.

I have to agree with this (I'm thinking of that Stuff essay by Paul Graham) - I have stuff in Dubai, Kabul, Yangon - in boxes. I'm sixpence none the richer (experience-wise) without it.

If you buy the $20 knives, as long as you can invest the money you don't spend at 6.34% or more, you actually come out ahead.

Did you include transaction costs in your calculations?

Not in the sense of emotional well-being.

The important thing to remember about $100 knives is that if this is all that is available, only certain people can have knives at all.

The really great thing about the "cheap asian manufacturing revolution" is that it means that nearly everyone can have a whole bunch of household goods that they may not have had before.

My grandfather had to pay nearly a months salary for a circular saw in 1958. I now have and use this saw all the time. Its so well made that my children will likely use it as well. I didn't get the saw until he died. Before that I had a $30 "harbor freight" saw. It was awful but at least I could have a saw at all. It certainly allowed me to fully appreciate the good one.

Which makes more sense: owning one quality $100 knife for 30+ years, or going through 10 $20 knives over the course of 30 years?

It depends. The $100 knife could become lost, stolen or damaged. Improved or cheaper knives, or even a new technology to replace the knife as we know it, could appear in the next 30 years. You could even keep two cheap knives so you have a spare whilst the other is in the dishwasher.

Even if you never go through 10 $10 knives and "save money", you lose out in time and happiness (dull blades perform poorly, and every day you prepare food is wasted time with a poor knife, and a blow to your own mood, because dull blades are more apt to slip and cut you, mar your food, and generally put you in a fowl mood).

If you don't cook, though, no worries.

You can get a decent knife for $10 and I've honestly never had a knife put me in a fowl[sic] mood.

^ Only sane comment in this whole stupid thread. Anyone who pays 100 dollars for a knife is a sucker.

I'm guessing you either don't use knives very much or haven't used a really nice one. I use a chef's knife every day, having a good one does not make me a sucker. It's like paying for the leather option when buying a car--it's not essential, but it's damn nice to have. The knife's a lot cheaper too :).

Coincidentally enough, this conversation has come up on HN before, and the consensus was that professional chefs actually use knives that cost around $30; $100 knives are for people who want expensive knives that are functionally indistinguishable from $30 ones. It's more like paying for a "free-range" leather option when buying a car. :)

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=269945

I commented there too :). I have the knife that Cooks Illustrated recommended, the Forschner. It's a good knife, worth the $25. Probably worth more, but it's not remarkable. I also have a Shun that's the same size and it's an amazing knife. Priced as such too, it's around $100. The differences are subtle, but because the Shun is perfectly balanced it's not hard to notice. My chef friends love it. Novice cooks who pick it up immediately notice something different. It's a very well crafted tool. Switch the prices and I'd still say the same thing, I'm all about getting a bargain.

If we're doing car comparisons, it's like a Camry versus a Lexus. The Lexus can't get you anywhere that the Camry can't, but you'll enjoy yourself more.

That said, I'm sure there are expensive knives out there that are simply shit. Price is a marketing technique sometimes. But there are real gems out there too. If I had to buy over again, I'd still get a Shun.

This is true.

The $10 knife and the $100 knife were probably made from the same material in the same factory in China. The $100 knife was just marketed differently.

If you want good performance, learn to sharpen your knives. The best way to learn is to sharpen many many knives. You can put a razor edge on any knife out there. There is no magic to it. Don't buy any fancy gadgets. Just get 3 good sharpening stones. You can get 3 good ones for under $100.

The $100 knife usually won't have better edge retention because it is probably made from the same material as the $10 variety. It was probably heat treated in the same way too. The only difference is that the $100 knife probably has better quality control. It probably looks nicer and feels nicer in the hand. These things matter to some people, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it will cut better. It won't.

So it is not worth buying good knives but it is worth buying good sharpening stones? Hmm.

I don't see why anyone wouldn't want something that feels nicer in the hand. Wouldn't you also want a chair that feels nicer on your arse? Even tho' you could make do with a cheaper one?

1. Under $100 translates into about $20 if you shop around or buy at garage sales

2. Some people value things differently. Nice feeling is worth $1 to some people and $100 to others.

Good catch ;) My thinking was revolving around cooking.

Your knife comparison is interesting because of the current really low interest rates. The IRR of the $100 knife is probably more competitive with the 10 $20 knives right now, compared to a couple of years ago. It seems conceivable to me that low interest rates would encourage people to buy a few quality items rather than a lot of crappy ones.