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
Wikipedia says Men at Arms. I’ll check.
Yeah, Men at Arms. Page 29 in the Harper paperback. He’s thinking over his upcoming marriage and just how rich the bride to be is.
Vimes more or less realizes that the police are, in general, bad, but that the best they can do is act as a ‘model’ for society because they are an example of all the races working together for a common goal. Of course, by that point he has kinda become the thing he hates, an aristocrat, but he’s generally focused more on being a parent and not being assassinated, and Carrot is the one generally in charge of doing the whole investigation thing.
The thing is that there is a distinction in T.P. between the Nightswatch, which is generally tasked with investigating crimes, and the City Guard, which are tasked with enforcing the law. The City Guard are always shown to be bad, self-interested and more or less incompetent at their jobs, while the Nightswatch is generally shown to be a mixed bag, but mostly bumbling and good-natured.
T.P. wasn’t a strict leftist per-say, but he certainly strayed past lib and his fictional creations are always warped reflections of reality.
I thought it was from his very first appearance, and it just got repeated several times throughout the series?
His entry in the discworld wiki does mention that in “Guards! Guards!” (His first appearance) It’s stated that he can tell where he is in ankh-morpork by the feel of the cobbles beneath his feet due to his thin boots. I’ll take a quick look.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
