text from Terry Pratchett; art by Higgs who's tumblr i've linked
i can’t rember which book this is from – i wanna say it’s Men at Arms but it could even be Guards Guards. Higgs seems to think it’s Night Watch, but I’m pretty sure it happened before that…
in the post here
I actually have this idea that this “boots” theory is outdated and/or harmful. I’ll explain.
The theory seems to be rooted in a time period where manufacturing was local and mass production and shrinkflation was not as advanced a thing as it is now.
So back then, you could buy the same $10 boots every year or the $50 boots every decade and get the same boots each time you purchase. At least, the same to some degree.
However, all boot manufacturing is now outsourced slave labor and shrinkflation is a universal strategy. Consumers get worse boots every year while they believe they are purchasing the same boots as last time.
Price discrimination gets you prettier boots or branding but not as much quality. The markets where this is the opposite are usually luxuries like cellphones, laptops, TVs.
Boots theory might actually still apply to boots (my soy hands have never touched a boot of work). But for the greater mass market of all general products, rugpulls (cashing out on brand’s historic quality reputation) and shrinkflation are now so standard and ubiquitous that word of mouth quality from a year ago is quickly outdated and worthless.
The default scenario is now the workers put those $50 boots on credit and still receive the $10 boots anyways.
I agree that the example is rather idealized. I think the benefit of the Boots Theory is getting the idea in people’s heads, encouraging them to think about how expenses and money can change with class. A difference in scale becomes a difference in kind, and it’s easier to notice that when you’ve already got a simple example you can easily wrap your head around.
An excellent real round-world example would be a rent vs. mortgage. After 10 years, your typical renter has spent more on housing than they would have on a mortgage, and they’re no closer to owning a home.
I think it’s an easy way to explain that “being poor is expensive”. But most of the people who are receptive to this kind of messaging already are quite ahead of the large amount of people who would deny poor people’s humanity whenever they can get away with it.
Thanks. I agree with your points and would like to add there are plenty of other reasons against that theory. People take it as theory for socioeconomic unfairness and think it explains a lot, but it is meant as a joke highlighting predatory pricing against the working class.
Also is a liberal way to run around surplus value extraction inherent to the production of commodities in a capitalist system. Seems to think it’s the merchants swindling workers and not their employers predominantly.
Price discrimination gets you prettier boots or branding but not as much quality. The markets where this is the opposite are usually luxuries like cellphones, laptops, TVs.
Even those fall off pretty fall off hard. I bought all the parts for my computer at around 500-600 bucks and I have no issue with playing any game or running any program. Sure, could I run ultra mega high graphic mode instead of mega high graphic mode if I spent 500 more? Yeah, but that doesn’t really matter.
The diminishing returns of quality just scale up so god damn quick and depending on the product could even be outdated within a few years anyway.
The boots theory is fun, but someone really needs to get Vimes to consider what happens when someone buys the boots store for $200,000 and it gives them $2,000 a month back.
Except nowadays the expensive as fuck boots also fall apart after six months
In my experience it goes:
Pay $100 for boots, falling apart in six months
Pay $400 for boots, falling apart in six months
I am using some products created in a state that doesn’t exist anymore. Comparable Western products are mostly not functioning anymore - for that specific product line. Why?
Cause the planers did think about the resources used and lifetime of items and created long lasting products.
I’d suggest finding some forums where construction workers, foundary workers, surveyors, park rangers, etc. hang out. They’ll know what companies are making worthwhile boots right now and who is making shit. I can’t remember how old my last pair of paratrooper boots are, but I want to say at least 7 years, probably more like a decade, and they’re on their second or third pair of soles. They’re corcorans. Currently 225ish, union made (I think) in PA.
I bought my first pair of Merrell hiking boots in about 1997. I started wearing them as my daily winter shoe in about 2003. I’m on my 2nd pair, but the tread is starting to wear down. I’ll probably buy my 3rd pair this fall.
In my opinion, this theory is categorically wrong. The overwhelming majority of rich people got rich by chance, not by a string of good long-term decisions.
They buy the same low quality shoes that break just as fast as that of the poor, but they spend a lot more money on these shoes, and think that they are superior because of the high price point.
The only difference is that these people are so unbelievably, obscenely rich that no amount of bad choices could ever threaten their wealth. They can buy hundreds, thousands of overly expensive shoes and never feel any consequences for their choices.
It’s a real phenomena, but passage is couched in the perspective of a fictional character in a fictional world. This isn’t “the only reason”, it’s just one that stands out to the character.
I’m gonna disagree with you there and say that expensive shoes are a lot more well-made than the crap you get at Wal-mart.
How do you know if a man is rich? Ask if he has a cobbler. The rich all do.
I bought $20 shoes for my restaurant job that lasted less than a month and made my knees hurt. I bought $200 shoes after that which lasted for years. I don’t know if that applies to many other commodities, but in this case it was definitely worth it.
I think because shoes and footwear are used regularly and subject to constant wear and tear it’s probably a place where quality really continues to matter. Walmart shoes are made out of shit materials and glued together. But a good pair of boots are made from quality leather, they have a good year welt, they’ve probably got a vibram sole. A lot of industries have stringent requirements on safety features like flame resistant, chemical resistant, puncture resistance, and steel toe caps that put a floor on how cheap manufacturer’s can go before their product can no longer be used by a lot of workers.
It doesn’t stop enshittification - Doc Marten’s got sold a while ago and the post-sale boots are shit compared to the old ones, but you can only cheat so much with boots.
It depends. Some of the expensive stuff really is high quality, but yes a lot of that is equally trash and just being spent because they can. Honestly though for a lot of products as long as you don’t go for the cheapest of cheap, they will be more than good enough for most.
I like the idea as a discussion when you’re with people curious about leftist theory, but the wealthy person in this situation would not be caught dead wearing last season’s boots. There’s an element to waste that deprives people too.
Like when Nike would cut perfectly good shoes and pile them in dumpsters
