The Vimes Boots Theory: Further Reflections
Heh, last year I bought expensive boots explicitly because of the Vimes&#x27; theory, but I have to say in <i>my</i> case it didn&#x27;t work out.<p>Maybe this comes from what the post says about &quot;knowing <i>what</i> to buy&quot;, but I bought boots made by a 2nd generation shoemaker constructed out of leather carefully prepared here in Chicago. They&#x27;re recraftable so I figured after the bottoms wore out I could fix them. But here I am a year later and the inside sole is coming up and squeaks with every step. I&#x27;m going to have to take it in to get it repaired, for probably $15-$20. From a consumer waste and natural resources perspective, I&#x27;m still happy with my purchase, but I&#x27;m pretty convinced that shopping every year or two at Walmart would leave the average person ahead, cost-wise.<p>More generally, I wonder to what extent the Vimes theory is true. Richer people buy higher quality items and generally have a more <i>luxurious</i> life, but I&#x27;m not sure that it&#x27;s cheaper overall. Or at least, there&#x27;s a point where it&#x27;s obviously the case (c.f. the T ticket vs Charlie card point in the post), but I think it happens pretty early on in wealth.<p>Case in point, I bought a nice 2 year old Chevy from a dealer with low miles for $12,000 a few years ago and haven&#x27;t had a problem with it. I can imagine <i>that</i> paying itself off quite easily vs. making do with a $3,000 beater that keeps falling apart and needing service. But from a purely <i>cost</i> perspective (not luxury), I don&#x27;t think beyond maybe $15k or so, more money in a car will save you in the long run.<p>So, I still kind of get Vimes&#x27; theory, but I only think it applies from, say, poverty to lower middle class level. Beyond that, I think upper class people spend more money on stuff, and get a sweet life because of it, but not as a cost saving measure.