
Pay Too Much for everything - denzil_correa
http://allentucker.com/pay-too-much/
======
beloch
The idea in this article is sometimes true, but it completely fails to take
into account the relentless march of technology. Some items, such as cell-
phones or laptops, will be totally obsolete within 10 years no matter how
finely made they are. Other items, such as guitars, will not be obsolete since
the technology isn't changing quickly, if at all. There will be new digital
guitars with funky synth modes every year, but a gibson dobro will still sound
like a gibson dobro in twenty years.

Some things fall somewhere in between. Your grandfather's watch is a marvel of
mechanical engineering that will keep time adequately for centuries if taken
to a watch-shop for maintenance every few years. That maintenance will cost
more than buying a new timex would, and the timex will keep far more accurate
time. Timex's are disposable. When the timex's battery dies it will probably
cheaper to replace it than to replace the battery. However, their function is
superior for all practical purposes. Many people currently enjoy the
aesthetics of mechanical watches. They're currently enjoying a major surge of
collectibility, but that wasn't the case twenty years ago and it may well not
be the case twenty years from now.

The real trick is to figure out what _can_ last and what should be treated as
disposable. e.g. Say you're building a home theater. Amps have changed very
little over the last 20 years. Preamps and receivers go obsolete every few
years. If you spend $5000 on a Bryston amp it will easily last 20 years
(that's how long it'll be under warranty!), but a Bryston preamp will be
hopelessly unusable long before that 20 year warranty runs out.

There are also big variations in short-term durability too that aren't
necessarily correlated with price. e.g. Macbook air's and the new retina pro's
are gorgeous pieces of engineering, but they're made to be disposable. If you
spill coffee on them they're basically done. You can't remove the battery and
take them apart to clean them (proprietary screws) like you can with a much
cheaper laptop and Apple won't lift a finger to help you. This is a case where
our perceptions of what is durable and high-quality can actually lead us to
buy something that won't last as long!

~~~
freehunter
As an anecdote to add to your great analysis, I know a lot of my engineering
coworkers (including me) who refuse to buy new cars. I drive a 15 year old
truck not because it's fuel-efficient, not because it's beautiful, not because
it has all the features, and certainly not because it needs no maintenance.
It's because when it does need maintenance, I can do it and it's relatively
cheap and easy. It's the Timex vs pocket watch thing, except in this case the
Timex is much more expensive. Repair-ability is decreasing the more computers
there are installed in a car.

The one new car I owned quickly became dated, even though I bought it with the
latest technology (it even had a Windows Mobile USB port!). My truck doesn't
have any technology to become outdated. It's the RHEL of the car world
compared to the Ubuntu. Not flashy or cutting edge, but bullet-proof and easy
to dig into the internals. I'd rather have something I can put 400k miles on
than something with an iPod port or built-in GPS that will be worthless when
it hits 150k.

~~~
roc
Cars are a good example of why "built to last" doesn't make universal sense.

We don't make trucks like we did 15 years ago, because we know what happens to
the human body inside a rigid metal shell during a collision. We know that we
can design engines and transmissions that will keep you on the road better,
keep you out of more accidents and at least halve your fuel bill. And these
gains will trivially outweigh the higher costs for maintenance, repair costs
and increased frequency of replacement.

Similarly with major appliances like refrigerators, furnaces and hot water
heaters. It's not at all uncommon to see people with older versions of those
appliances that are 30+ years old, still tickin and trivial to repair and
maintain. But they're so horribly inefficient that even if you replace that
classic with a modern model that will fall apart the day after its warranty
expires, you can save so much more money in the interim that you'll still be
ahead after you replace it.

Now, I'm not arguing that you should go out and buy the latest. Or that aiming
for longevity and repairability is _never_ right.

I'm just saying that there are trade-offs when something is "designed to last"
and "easy to repair". And, particularly when moving parts and electronics are
involved, those trade-offs can cost more in the long run.

~~~
freehunter
A good point about reliability not being the only factor in buying a car. I
drive a Toyota 4Runner, which has a 4-star safety rating. It's from years
before pedestrian safety laws, so the pedestrian safety rating is low, but the
passenger safety rating is quite good. 20mpg is still hard to get from a V-6
truck engine these days. The only modern safety features I wish I had are hill
start assist and traction/stability control. Maybe side-impact air bags.

Your point is perfectly valid for most cars. I would never drive a Corvair
just because it's more repairable than a Volt. But there certainly is a market
for a dead-simple yet modernly designed car.

~~~
roc
> _"20mpg is still hard to get from a V-6 truck engine these days."_

True enough. But 4 cylinder engines are turning out 150hp and 3500 pounds of
towing capacity these days. So the V-6, in and of itself, may not be an
appropriate requirement.

As to the market: perhaps. I'm not saying it's impossible to find a modern
middle-ground. But I don't know how many people even _want_ to lift their hood
these days.

This past model year it's already started to become somewhat common for
commuter cars to ditch the _spare tire_. And perhaps more bothersome, it's
pretty difficult to find drivers who really _care_ that they're missing.

------
wccrawford
A while back, I stopped buying the highest-priced goods and started doing
research instead. What I found what the best things weren't the highest-
priced. I also found that I could find the best items _for me_ because what I
care about isn't necessary what others care about.

Using this, I've managed to buy better shoes, toasters, and even a car than
I've ever had before, and at less than I would have spent if I hadn't done
that research. The car ended up being the cheapest car made by that
manufacturer, and I like it better than any other car I've ridden in or
driven. (Admittedly, I haven't tried anything over about $50k, but I couldn't
afford those anyhow.) I would never have found it if I used price as an
indicator of quality, instead of reviews.

The key to reviews is to look over the good reviews. Look at the bad reviews
instead. Find out what people hate about it. And then ask yourself: Does that
feature matter to me?

My rice maker doesn't make brown rice well at all. Many people complained
about that. However, white rice is the only kind I make, and it does a great
job on that. So it didn't make sense to spend twice as much money on a better
rice maker. I could have spent more money and gotten an objectively better
rice maker. But why bother?

So no, I don't agree with paying too much or buying the 'best'. At all.

~~~
denzil_correa
You're actually agreeing with the author without realizing it. Why? Because
you decided to buy X because it was valued at a certain price and you could
afford it. You didn't buy a "cheap" (in quality) version of the product (since
you did your research). Unknowingly you are agreeing with the author. :-)

~~~
schiffern
Except the author is arguing that you should use "expensive" as a heuristic
(instead of "cheap"). wccrawford is arguing that quality is orthogonal to
price.

~~~
undergroundhero
No, he's not.

 _This doesn’t always work. Sometimes a cheaper product is actually better.
But consider removing price as the default decision criteria._

He's advising you to stop buying the cheapest available, not to buy the most
expensive available.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Your last sentence contradicts 2 out of 3 of those you quote.

He says sometimes a cheaper product is better, you say he's telling us not to
buy the cheapest [but he said it _could_ be better].

He says remove price as the main criteria, you say use price as the main
criteria to rule out the cheapest products.

------
latch
I don't agree with most of this. The idea that price equals quality has long
been used by merchants to extract money from consumers, not extend value. Sure
it's true of some products and some companies, but overall I'd argue that at
best, more expensive things aren't close to being relatively better - by any
meaningful measure.

A $300 meal isn't 10x better - in terms of taste (subjective obviously) or
nutrition - as a $30 meal. A BMW 3 Series is a better car than a Ford Focus,
but looking only at the practical reasons to own a car, it's not even close to
having twice the value.

In a lot of cases, brand names bring no value other than the brand. And while
that can have a placebo effect, it's not more value. Medicine comes to mind as
a great example. You are paying more for marketing and packaging than you are
for R&D. The recent thread on memristors even highlighted that R&D costs are
1/100th of total cost, with marketing taking the lion's share.

Quality items appreciate while cheap items depreciate? No consumer good should
be viewed as a financial investment. If something does appreciate in 50 years,
it'll be more about luck than anything else.

~~~
bobf
A $300 meal can be 10x better than a $30 meal. Most $30 meals are _fine_ , but
a $300 meal may be the best meal you have ever had.

~~~
lazerwalker
The key word there is _can_. A $300 meal may be the best meal you've ever had,
but spending $300 on a meal isn't a guarantee that it will be. Conversely,
it's also possible that $30 meal could be the best meal you've ever had. Less
likely, sure, but possible.

It reminds me of advice I've been given from friends who are really into wine:
the difference between a $10 bottle of wine, a $50 bottle of wine, and a $100
bottle of wine isn't that the more expensive ones are better, it's that
they're more likely to be good.

~~~
KC8ZKF
There is at least some evidence that an expensive bottle of wine tastes better
_because_ it's expensive. When the cost of the wine is unknown to the taster,
the differences disappear.[1] And, when a wine is presented to the taster as
expensive it is perceived as better than cheaper wines _even when it is the
same wine._ [2]

[1] [http://www.wine-
economics.org/journal/content/Volume3/number...](http://www.wine-
economics.org/journal/content/Volume3/number1/Full%20Texts/01_wine%20economics_Robin%20Goldstein_vol%203_1.pdf)

[2] [http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/15/expensive-wine-
tas...](http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/15/expensive-wine-tastes-
better/)

~~~
spenczar5
Your first article, at least, comes with a strong caveat: "We ﬁnd that,
_unless they are experts_ , individuals who are unaware of the price enjoy
more expensive wines slightly less." (emphasis added)

~~~
KC8ZKF
If you and I were to get together and agree on a certain aesthetic, and then
we were to declare people who agreed with our aesthetic "experts", and then we
were to test random people against our set of experts, our experts would agree
with our aesthetic more often than the others.

That says nothing about peoples enjoyment. If people, experts or not, enjoy
expensive wine more than inexpensive wine, they still enjoy it more even if
their reasoning is flawed.

~~~
spenczar5
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You seemed to originally be
claiming that there isn't an appreciable aesthetic difference between cheap
wine and expensive wine, and that all wine is basically the same when you
don't think about price ("When the cost of the wine is unknown to the taster,
the differences disappear.")

But the article you provided seems to say that there _is_ a difference between
cheap and expensive wine - it's just that most people are not good enough to
detect it. I think this is important because it invalidates the claim that
"all wine is indistinguishable." There's a difference, it's just hard to
detect, and the pros are better at it.

To return to the original point of the thread, though, wine actually is a
pretty interesting example that complicates the original poster's point. The
more you wine you drink, the more important it is to pay extra. It's not that
the expensive stuff _isn't_ better, it's just that you have to care a whole
lot to appreciate the difference, so most people actually will be fine just
getting relatively cheap wine.

------
PedroCandeias
I don't think the Op is getting as much love as he deserves.

    
    
      Many of the intangible pieces that make up the quality of a product or service
      go out the door when we’re getting a deal. They’re doing a favor and sometimes
      when we bargain, people resent us.
    

This is absolute gold when it comes to longer business relationships. I have
come through to believe that entirely too many fail simply because someone is
resentful over terms.

As for the relation between cost and quality, I agree with many here that it
isn't clear-cut. But the relation does exist. You just need to be discerning,
which is why the Op writes:

    
    
      Because we only buy quality, we are forced to wait until we can afford what we
      really want.  That wait time leads to better decisions, and it forces us to
      make due with what we have.
    
    

# Edit: formatting

~~~
pitt1980
it cuts both ways, you don't want to get 'sucker' stapped on your forehead
early in a business relationship

obviously, good relationships have give a take both ways, a little framing of
what you expect early on, can pay alot of dividends over the long run

~~~
PedroCandeias
True. I guess the ideal is to be seen as someone who is generous but has high
expectations and will not hesitate to terminate the relationship and move
business elsewhere.

------
mattm
The highest priced items are that way mostly due to the marketing costs
associated with selling high priced items and trying to create the illusion
that it is better quality.

Lifetime guarantees are pretty much worthless because most people will forget
they have one, lose the item or lose the documents related to it.

Top pay doesn't attract the best people. Top work attracts the best people
because the best people have most likely realised that money doesn't really
matter if you're working on something that doesn't provide meaning for you.

The sweet spot for quality is to figure out the approximate average price of
the product you want to buy and then pay a little above that.

------
scott_w
This article is based on a number of nonsensical assumptions:

1) That paying more equates to higher quality. It doesn't. Your £30 t-shirt
will fall apart every bit as quickly as your £3 multi-pack from Primark.

2) That you want to have something last a lifetime. Just last weekend, my dad
was complaining about having no good jig-saws. Then followed up with "of
course, I could buy a good one, but I only use them once every 5 years, so
they're knackered when I need them anyway".

3) When you want quality, you can't just borrow it off someone else.

I'm not against paying more for something e.g. my uncle has expensive joinery
kit because his day job is a joiner. I simply dislike the mentality of "I must
pay top-dollar for everything", before you've evaluated what you actually
want.

------
colomon
I'm not sure I'd say this article is wrong, exactly, but it sure seems like
all the arguments in it are very shallow. Yeah, I have my great-grandfather's
pocketwatch, and it still runs. But it has required repairs that each cost
significantly more than buying ten brand new cheap watches would have. It's
the least reliable timepiece I own. And I hardly ever use it, because my
cellphone is always with me and is considerably more accurate -- and is not
the only heirloom I have from my namesake great-grandfather! Its main value to
me is pure sentimentality.

I'm sure other watches were purchased by my other great-grandfathers; to the
best of my knowledge, none of those watches survived to the present day. It
might be because they only bought cheap watches. But it might also be that
they bought expensive watches and those watches broke or got lost. Looking
solely at what survived to today tells you very little about what was
purchased yesterday.

And I'm sure my great-grandfather didn't buy the most expensive watch
possible. If it had come down to the choice of buying a watch which cost $10
more, or saving that money to give me $200 today, I'd take the money!

------
wanderr
On the other hand, I've noticed, and others have observed as well, that
generally more expensive items are more likely to have poor reviews on Amazon,
for example. The most likely explanation is that higher prices lead to higher
expectations, which are often hard to meet.

Another point I'd like to make is that cheap stuff can be totally awesome,
especially if you don't need or want it to last a lifetime. Example: IKEA. My
girlfriend changed her mind about the furniture she wanted in her apartment
several times over the few years she was there, and was able to update the
look to be exactly what she wanted for very little money. Compare that to the
armoire I payed an ass load of money for that will surely last a lifetime, but
doesn't really fit anywhere in my current home.

~~~
mmcnickle
Though I imagine you could easily sell your armoire for close to what you paid
for it (if indeed it hasn't actually gained value). I don't think there is a
market for second hand IKEA furniture.

You have to weigh up between the money you lose in scrapping the IKEA
apartment vs. the dead money tied up in quality furniture "inventory" and the
relative difficulty in selling that to free up the funds again.

------
morsch
I wish the article was true. It'd be so nice to simply pay a premium and rest
assured that it's an equitable approach: you get an improved product, the
retailer gets a higher profit, the distributor, the people actually creating
the product get a cut.

The reality is you can't rely on any single of these to be true, and as soon
as you're willing to buy something and especially if you're willing to pay 10,
50 or 100% more than the absolute minimum you're the prime meat of the other
half of the worlds who make it their business to ensure that it's _not_ an
equitable approach.

------
drostie
One key way in which the article is right on-the-money, so to speak, is to
highlight the ridiculous frenzy that we go into to save disproportionately
small amounts of money.

Our audience here is mostly programmers. Programmers should all know the
golden rule of optimization: _profile it first_. Don't take it on intuition or
faith that "this is what was slowing me down" unless you've measured it. The
same principle applies in personal finance. Group together your expenses into
some key logical categories -- "groceries", "tech", "rent", "retirement",
"health", "nights out", and whatever else makes sense to you. Then add them
up, do the maths. Know what you're spending and how it compares, and how the
categories make up your monthly budget.

Frugality is generally quite good, but just like code, it's quite possible to
overoptimize it into a time-sink.

Also, it's key that you see both the high-cost single-time expenses and the
low-cost-but-everyday expenses and you get an idea for how they compare.
Depending on how often you visit Starbucks, it might be a very good or very
insignificant change to brew your own coffee at home; go on and measure it.

The single most surprising thing that I discovered about this process was
that, even though I feel like I give money to beggars in the street "often"
(i.e. whenever I see them and they ask) and give "a lot" (i.e. much more than
is normally typical), the amount that I give actually works out to almost
nothing on a monthly basis. Like, I'm poor and right now I have no proper
employment (they don't pay you to do a Master's degree) and yet I can still
afford to be generous to the people who are down on their luck, and it's just
nothing when you compare it to the amount I'd save if I stopped drinking cola.
I've got no income, but I'd still easily spend € 50 on food to throw a party
for my friends, so long as it happens only about once a month, twice max.

~~~
Squazic
I think you did a great job of trying to relating this topic to the
programming mentality here. Many of the comments here seem to focus on how
technology should not be purchased expensively or how this or that is not
worth the extra money. The author does not set in stone that you must go for
the more expensive item. He does qualify that some things, such as phones, are
disposable and should not be approached with the "buy expensive" mentality.

------
praptak
As always with the "Do <not-very-popular thing> and get <obvious-benefits>"
articles, there is an obvious question: why doesn't everybody do that? I
cannot speak for other people but here are my reasons for not always going for
the quality over price.

First, I obviously cannot always afford the high price. When I bought the car
I had checked the failure reports and decided it just wasn't worth paying an
additional few months salary to get the failure probability down 2-3 percent a
year (checked other parameters too, similar conclusions.) And yeah, I waited
till a good deal was available to me.

Second, getting a quality item might cost even more of my personal time -
finding out which one is actually good and searching for a local vendor isn't
exactly free.

Third, maybe I don't even want an expensive item that lasts forever. Suppose I
want to get into photography but don't really know if I'll keep this hobby.
I'd intentionally google "cheap beginner dslr" and stick with the findings.
Chances are that by the time it needs replacement I'll be ready for a more
fancy gear or bored with the new hobby. Win-win :)

~~~
b0rsuk
1\. It's not always true that things that are more expensive are also higher
quality. But the reverse is true: things of higher quality are more expensive.
Because they're made of better materials, because they were grown naturally,
because they were made of natural ingredients, because they were tested...
better stuff is usually made with more effort or better material.

2\. Because of #1, distinguishing genuine high quality stuff from a simple
ripoff takes critical thinking. People don't like thinking too much, don't
like analyzing, and critical thinking is unpopular especially in United States
of America. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo>

------
terhechte
The russians have a saying for this: "I'm too poor to buy cheap". Really says
everything about it.

~~~
ZoFreX
My stepfather is a carpenter and the maxim he passed down to me is "buy cheap,
buy twice". It applies particularly strongly to the tools of your trade,
doubly so if those tools are physical things like saws and hammers.

------
mathgladiator
I've found this to be very true in many ways when buying 'quality'. Buy
'quality' and not 'crap', and you will always be happier and the OP's
statements are all true.

I think price is a poor estimator for quality since marketers know that price
alone can signal quality, so it stands we need something beyond price.

How do we determine if something is quality when price is unreliable.

~~~
treerock
Totally agree. I'll happily spend more if I know I'm getting something that is
better quality. But figuring out whether those £150 hiking boots are any
better than the £30 ones (to use a recent personal example) is very difficult.
It generally takes experience. Lacking that I try to find advice from a
trustworthy source. The internet has helped massively in that regard.

------
suprgeek
I think what the article is trying to say is "Buy the best quality that you
can afford". Unfortunately the Author has completely conflated Quality with
Price.

Higher price != Better Quality (not always anyway)

~~~
denzil_correa
And to be fair to the author, he mentions the same

> This doesn’t always work. Sometimes a cheaper product is actually better.
> But consider removing price as the default decision criteria.

~~~
EzGraphs
The main point - rule of thumb - that can be derived:

 _consider removing price as the default decision criteria_

Most of the comments here (and parts of the original article) are elaborations
on applying this principal. So price is not necessarily correlated with
quality, but using price as a default decision criteria results in suboptimal
outcomes (stuff that is not really "better" or consumers that are happier or
otherwise benefited).

~~~
denzil_correa
Once again the author asks you to _consider_ removing the price as a decision
criteria. He's still exactly talking about the same thing as you are. :-)

------
Wilya
I definitely disagree. Maybe sometimes, paying twice as much gives you
something that lasts ten times longer. Or maybe, you will pay five times as
much, and get something that (hopefully) lasts a bit longer.

I use a lot of earphones, and they tend to break quite fast. Once or twice, I
decided to move away from the usual 15$ models and pay 60$ for better brands,
with good reviews, and everything. Did they last longer ? Of course not. They
sounded marginally better, but nothing worth the price..

The thing is, price is an indicator of positioning. It's a marketing tool, and
it's generally not correlated to quality. Buying the very cheapest is usually
not a good idea, because the manufacturer probably did everything it could to
actually beat competitors and propose the lowest price. But other than that,
that's pretty much all you can know in advance.

Knowing what items are made of good quality and will last longer (and
therefore are worth paying an extra for) is very hard. So, my reasoning on
that is that I prefer to spend less money on something, since on average, it
will live just as long.

~~~
meric
Well, the $60 earphone actually comes with a 2 year warranty... whereas the
$15 one does not.

~~~
qxcv
Buy fewer than four pairs of $15 headphones in two years and you're still
ahead. At least, you're still ahead financially; value is virtually impossible
to quantify when you take into account subjective qualities like sound,
appearance and comfort.

~~~
meric
The $15 earphones last 3-4 months and I'm tired of spending an hour every few
months to pick an ear phone, as well of the "music down time" that entails.
That's why I started paying more. Hopefully my $60 ear phones last longer. I
would rather not have to rely on the warranty.

------
fsniper
But there is a "new - well not very new exactly -" economical trend to build
products that have an end of life carved on them. So buying expensive stuff
does not mean having long lasting products anymore. It was an old time story.

------
nazgulnarsil
People who are too lazy to ammortize will spend a lot more money in the long
run. The perfect example is the _hilarious_ subsidized cell phone market in
the US.

------
mmcnickle
For me the most difficult thing about buying "quality" is the effort required
in researching what the quality product is. It's been mentioned that price
isn't always a good indicator, and the mainstream stores generally don't cater
for people looking for quality.

For example, I'm buying a set of screwdrivers for a DIY job. I know I'll need
screwdrivers for the rest of my life, I want to buy quality ones. I go to some
big DIY store expecting a good range of screwdrivers. What I get is a
selection of mickey-mouse screwdrivers (£5 for a set of 20) and some middle-
of-the-road-but-overpriced screwdrivers (£20 for a set of 20). There is no
"buy these and never buy another screwdriver again" set for £60-100.

You can get these, but it takes considerable effort to track them down.

------
crazygringo
A lot of people tend to buy middle-priced things. Marketers rely a lot on this
fact, actually, to take advantage of your ignorance.

I've found it's much better to avoid middle-priced things, most of the time.
Usually, the cheapest option will meet your needs just as well.

But then you need to identify the things in your life that really contribute
to your happiness, and then pay what's necessary for full quality in those.

I spend top dollar on fresh meat and vegetables and on my kitchen pans and
chef's knives and olive oils for salads. But I have the cheapest vegetable
peeler and spatula and paring knives and toaster and olive oil for frying.

------
allentucker
Author here - There are many good points here. The purpose of my article was
to give a different perspective from the default "buy whatever is cheapest"
method that I believe most people follow. Obviously it would be an error to
buy things that that aren't better for more money, but I believe this error is
often better than the opposite error, buying twice. A good example: I'm
writing this on a 10 year old laptop running 1900x1200. Thanks for the
comments and feedback.

------
webjunkie
One has to differentiate. There are things that are worth to have once and for
life. But most things I gladly buy cheap - because I know I can dispose them
later and not a fortune is lost. What If I spend much money on fashionable
things that I like, but dislike in 2 years? I rather swap out most of my cheap
stuff over the years rather than worry what will last longest and if I might
still like it and so on.

~~~
randomdata
Indeed. Since the article mentioned cell phones: I would say on average, it
costs about $200/year to own a smartphone (service not included). $6000† if
you maintain that for 30 years. Yet I cannot imagine paying $2,000 for a
smartphone that will provide uninterrupted service for 30 years. It is far
cheaper to have the single upfront cost, but the technology progresses so
rapidly that your device probably won't even work with the communications
systems of the day by then. It makes a huge difference on what you are buying.

† Realistically more like $15,000+ if you start to include the costs of not
having that money, but we'll keep the calculations simple.

------
prawn
Reminds me of some gift buying advice I read. Given a specific budget, don't
get a big-but-cheap item, but a higher-quality but smaller/simpler item. The
latter is more likely to be valued and retained.

I think the example given, for a golfer, was a crafted/precious golf tee over
a trashy electronic putting game. (Ignoring, of course, the fact that the tee
might easily get lost.)

------
Havoc
I associate old with quality more than price.

e.g. My dad has 2 Bosch drills ( <http://i.imgur.com/aCkaq.jpg> ). Roughly 20
years old. When you hold them in your hand you just know that it'll last
another 40 years. As a result I have a really difficult time taking any of the
modern drills seriously.

------
wickedchicken
Feeling insecure about your place in life? Worried you're not happy enough,
cool enough, or loved enough? You clearly aren't spending enough money. Don't
bother creating things or building interpersonal relationships. Spend more
time thinking about acquiring physical goods and making sure you're _only
getting the best_.

------
parka
The article reminds me of what I learned in a marketing:

Value = Benefits / Cost <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28marketing%29>

Marketing comes into play. If not, items for sale would be using cost-based
pricing.

A Mac and a PC would both can accomplish the same task. But one is more
expensive than another. Being cheaper doesn't necessarily mean it won't last
as long.

Tipping is one area that I don't understand about cultures that have them.
Generally, I would expect the tip to be included in the price of the food. Why
waste my time and have me figure out what amount to tip? Personally, I don't
see the perceived value of tipping.

In some way, how much you pay is also determined by how you see yourself, or
in some cases want others to see you.

------
maciejgryka
I highly recommend The Paradox of Choice [http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-
Choice-Why-more-less/dp/006000...](http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-
more-less/dp/0060005688)

To quote from the article: "People who constantly try to always get that great
deal end up spending all their time chasing those deals and never actually get
things done. I’ve seen people do this their entire lives, and it is
debilitating."

You can say the same about people who spend all their time trying to
constantly get "the best" product. Figure out a few things that are important
to you and maximise these - whether on quality or price. For the rest, learn
to accept "good enough" and get on with your life doing things that matter for
you.

------
debacle
The problem is that the modern consumer cannot associate cost with quality. I
usually buy the cheapest appliance I can find (microwave, coffee machine, lawn
mower) because it has the fewest bells and whistles and is likely the only one
I can fix myself.

~~~
nosse
If I don't have the time to really look into things, I go with the cheapest
too.

\- You usually have exactly the quality you paid for, so no surprises here.

\- It's often more ecological. If factory A can produce more stuff with same
money than factory B, they must be doing something right. Another way to look
at this would be: if you have to make shovels dirt cheap, you can't use
barrels of oil/shovel, because you would have to pay for that oil.

I really cannot prove this cheap is ecological, but I've noticed that this
holds true in plastic Christmas-trees, cucumbers and majority of unprocessed
meat products. Chicken production should cause only 1/5 of the problems that
beef production. Surprise, surprise chicken also cost's 1/5.

~~~
greedo
Where I live, ground chuck goes for $4/lb, and chicken breasts go for $7/lb.
Not sure what the cost per pound of an entire steer versus an entire chicken,
but I don't see the same price variance that you're writing about.

Also, the ecological impact might be because Crappy Factory A is manufacturing
cheap shovels and dumping their toxic waste in a local river, while Factory B
has to charge more because it's following industry standards and using a
reputable waste handler.

Or Crappy Factory A might be using underage employees, or dumping product to
eliminate its competition.

Drawing conclusions about manufacturers based on pricing is dangerous.

~~~
nosse
"Drawing conclusions about manufacturers based on pricing is dangerous." I
completely agree. But in my opinion, drawing conclusions about manufacturers
based on reputation is as dangerous. And it takes time to get that reputation
info. Time I don't have many times.

Only reliable way to have good conclusions about manufacturers is to examine
their business throughly. That's obviously just impossible in most cases.

PS. Chicken breast is expensive here too. I buy whole legs.

------
ajaimk
The key part of that is the line about services and tips. Just being a
generous tipper gets you better service, and specially if you are a regular at
the same restaurant or bar. 20% by default with an occasional bump up to 25%
in tip gets you remembered and the servers get to know you.

I've had such a good relationship at some of my regular restaurants to the
point where I once had ups deliver a package to the bar for me when I was out
of town. Other places, the staff starts comping your drinks. My best one was
the manager at a restaurant giving me a blanket 20% discount on anything I buy
(I tip at least 25% after they put in that discount).

In the long run, you get better service if you pay for it.

------
jackalope
Design determines manufacturing costs. Engineering determines durability.
Marketing determines price. Coordinating all three is essential to delivering
value. It's absurd to suggest that any one (or all) of them offer protection
from obsolescence.

------
denzil_correa
> This is so weird to me. No one haggles over $5 on the price of a car, but it
> seems that everyone needs a tip calculator to determine if they should pay
> 21.50 or $22.00 for a meal.

A $5 on a 2000 is 0.25% and a $0.50 on $20 meal is 2.5%

~~~
hythloday
Is this relevant? If I get £50 off a house purchase and then tip the next
waiter I meet £50 on a £50 meal, I'm no better off but the waiter will be
ecstatic and the house-seller probably not more morose. The percentages are
not terribly relevant to _happiness_ , which is not well-correlated with money
saved--see Dickens for more details. :)

~~~
denzil_correa
My point was you save more for on $0.50 on a meal than a $5 on a car. In terms
of pure monetary value, it is relevant. This comment was more in the light of
an "alternate" theory as the author doesn't appreciate the fact that people
haggle over $0.50 on a tip.

~~~
TeMPOraL
In terms of pure monetary value it is irrelevant, actually. Yes, $0.50 is much
more a saving relative to meal price than car price, but it's still $0.50,
aka. insignificant amount of money, usually not worth the time it takes to
argue for it.

------
typicalrunt
I liked the article in general, but this got me:

 _I usually eat at the same few restaurants all the time. They’re maybe 10%
more expensive, usually locally owned, and the food doesn’t come out of a
frozen pre-made bag before being tossed in the oven. I never tip less than
20%, and I’m not an asshole….at restaurants._

I don't understand this thought process. Why not pay 100% tip then? Is the 20%
number somehow magical and affords the ability to be elitist? So if I tip 15%,
which is the average suggested tip in Western Canada, I'm somehow an
asshole???

~~~
mturmon
Tip well enough that your generosity will be noticed by the staff.

There are advantages to tipping at the 90-th percentile (not a 90% tip!),
especially if you are a frequent customer. You will be remembered.

Note, "asshole" has nothing to do with it.

------
jakeonthemove
Instead of overpaying, I think it's better to get the best product you can for
the money you have. It does require you to learn how to recognize quality and
know the prices, but it pays off in the end.

For example, I wouldn't buy a Ferrari or even Porsche 911 (both high quality
cars, no doubt, but expensive) when a Nissan GTR R35 performs just as well and
costs less.

All three will last a lifetime with a bit of care (I hate how people just use
their tech without any maintenance, then wonder why "the POS" broke down!), so
why pay more (aside from the design)?

~~~
karolist
Some people have other criteria to buying a car, emotional more often than
not. For example, Ferrari's and Porsche's are known to a lot of common folk
and associated with rich people, GTR - not so much. Also, different cars have
different feel to driving them, different sound isolation, suspensions,
seating position and road view, these tiny bits can be evaluated
subconsciously even though you're after performance.

If I based my purchase only on performance I'd buy BMW S1000RR which performs
just as well (albeit comes with less safety) than the other 3 and cost just a
fraction!

~~~
nosse
I thought this too. Motorcycles are probably the most cost effective way to go
from 0 - 100km/h below three seconds.

------
UnoriginalGuy
The problem with this "buy for life" stuff is that how do you determine what
is really a "buy for life" product rather than just an over-priced "brand?"

For example, I could go out and buy a $200 pair of sunglasses but depending on
where I buy them they can either be poor quality (e.g. fashion brands,
sunglass hut, etc) or exceptional (e.g. fishing shops, sailing suppliers,
workman-glasses, etc).

You would expect reviews to give you an accurate way to tell but people often
review a product by the way it makes them FEEL rather than about the product
its self.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
You answered your own question: given a choice, if you can buy from the
supplier that sells to industrial/commercial users, the quality will usually
be better.

e.g., I buy my T-Shirts from Tractor Supply. They are cheaper, _much_ thicker
and last longer than the ones I bought from American Apparel. Farmers are
harder on clothing than the average urban dweller, I'm guessing.

The tools I buy from McMaster-Carr or Fastenal may cost the same or slightly
more than the tools (often the same brands) from Home Depot or the local
hardware store, but they are much better quality.

~~~
AjithAntony
The lightweight fabric at American Apparel is a premium feature.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
To whom? I can poke a hole in it by just looking at it the wrong way. I'm
buying a T-Shirt, not a pair of pantyhose.

------
tchock23
I agree with most of the ideas in this article with the small exception of the
example he gives for services and hiring "the best firm in the country." I
think you're mostly paying for overhead and bloat in those cases, and I would
prefer to work with "the guy down the street" if I can (in which case I'd want
to find the best "guy down the street," regardless of cost).

Other than that, it amazes me how people won't spend for quality in situations
where it clearly is in their best interest for the long-term...

------
logical42
Would have preferred re-reading the Wikipedia article, personally
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference) as it was better written, and
considerably less self-satisfied in tone.

------
alain
On the topic of paying less, there's a saying which goes something like this :
"the cheapest price you can get for a thing is to not buy it" [1]. Of course
this can't be applied for everything but a lot of people, myself included,
tend to buy a lot of gadgets they don't need and don't use. This is a simple
advice but I think it can go a long way to saving money.

[1] if someone has the exact quote, I'll be thankful for it.

------
Loic
The author is right but the problem at the moment is that more and more, you
cannot correlate quality with price. That is, expensive gears can be of low
quality. It is harder and harder to even be able _to pay more knowing that you
get more_.

Also, the point missing is that _you need to take care of your expensive
gears_. You need to put money into maintenance.

------
arjunnarayan
What about the selection bias? You don't see the watches your grandfather
bought that didn't make it down to you because they broke. Of course the few
carefully selected things that have survived and been handed down are the
exceptional pieces!

------
jwl
Partly true, but I guess most of don't buy new things when the old ones are
totally worn out. It is more like we just some new stuff for a change, not
necessarily because what we have is broken. So it doesn't automatically save
you money.

------
mathattack
Great modern defense of penny-wise and pound-foolish.

The challenge is automation and commodification pushes us towards the lowest
common denominator. Look at airlines, being forced into price, not quality.

------
cdvonstinkpot
Looks like an interesting article, but I can't bear to read it. Too much side-
scrolling on my Blackberry. Why doesn't the text autofit my screen like other
pages do?

I'll have to read it when I get home.

~~~
rythie
It's quite readable on my iPhone in landscape and even in portrait, perhaps
you should have bought a better phone like the article suggests?

------
martinw2k
Well, that was a very long way of saying "you get what you pay for".

------
scott_meade
A lot of commentators missed the point: "Sometimes a cheaper product is
actually better. But consider removing price as the default decision
criteria."

It's simple and good advice.

------
prezjordan
This is how I feel about my computers. I don't want a "good deal" when it
comes to price. I'll spend a lot, and get a lot in return.

------
b0rsuk
We have a saying:

"Poor people can't afford inexpensive stuff."

~~~
wahnfrieden
Poor people end up getting worse deals on things though since they often have
fewer resources available to them. If they wanted to pay more for something
that will last, they may not have that option if they don't live in or around
an affluent neighborhood. It's more expensive to be poor.

------
nsxwolf
Generally: Cheap jeans last forever. Expensive jeans tear in about a week.

~~~
wahnfrieden
Actually cost has very little relation with cost to quality in denim jeans,
besides that there is a production cost for higher quality denim fabric and
stitching which doesn't seem to factor much into pricing besides increasing
the minimum.

------
saturn
> My favorite pair of jeans gets worn 10 times more often than my other jeans.
> If I did away with the other jeans, I could afford to buy more of those
> things I really love.

This took me embarrassingly long to realise. Instead of buying clothes because
they were pretty nice and on sale, buy only what you absolutely love, and pay
full price. Instead of having "favourite underwear", get rid of everything
that's not your favourite and make sure you only own favourites.

Yeah, it costs more at first. But over time you build up a wardrobe of high
quality clothes you love. Quality over quantity, indeed.

~~~
lsc
huh. my jeans usually fail through use; they don't usually languish.

The thing is? I have some costco brand jeans I bought during the first dot-com
that I still wear. they were under $15. Actually, at the same time I bought a
bunch of designer jeans. The designer jeans all failed (at least one of them
catastrophically... dramatically ripping the crotch wide open as I lifted a
server in front of something of a crowd.) within a year of purchase.

My experience has been that expensive things are not always better. In fact,
expensive clothing is usually designed for rich people, who don't need to lift
things or trace cables through crawlspaces, and who will want clothing of the
new style next year anyhow.

Clothing designed for working people is usually much more durable. And yeah,
you can sometimes get increased durability by buying something more expensive
within that sector? but the nicest dickies brand work pant is on par with the
designer jeans they sell at target, price-wise.

So yeah, in general? if you are selecting for durability in clothing? the
price signal is actually the opposite of what you want to look at.

~~~
kaolinite
I have a friend who used to buy jeans from Costco. If he was ever with me when
I was buying clothes, he would always be shocked at the money I was spending
on jeans (I'm not talking designer, I mean £40 high-street jeans, that kind of
thing). He would say that I could buy 2 or 3 pairs for the same price at
Costco and there'd be no difference.

I challenged him to buy a pair and now that's all he wears. They last longer
(his old ones used to rip at the crotch) and feel much nicer to wear. However,
you're right, price sadly isn't too good an indicator now. I doubt that
spending £100 on jeans will provide much improvement over the kind of jeans I
wear but buying slightly more expensive - as opposed to dirt-cheap - is
definitely worthwhile.

~~~
lsc
eh, I think that most of what you are paying for is, well, paying more.

I mean, today, the kids are buying $400 jeans that are thick and tough (then
they don't wash them, which sounds disgusting, but what do I know?) but, you
know, at least they are probably durable. But during the first dot com? the
expensive jeans were made of this super thin denim that was then pre-stressed
at the factory;

So yeah, in '99? if you walked in to a store and bought the very cheapest
jeans you could get, you'd get a medium weight denim that was reasonably
durable. If you spent USD$50-$80 for the 'calvin klein' low end designer
stuff? it was this ridiculously thin denim that had been bleached to hell.

But yeah, my point is that if you really do choose your product based on price
positioning, rather than on the merits (and price) of the product? you are
likely making suboptimal choices. Just because there is a more expensive
version and a cheaper version available, that doesn't make the middle of the
road choice the most reasonable.

A more recent example: I recently got a giant TV for the office for my
montoring setup, and I lost the HDMI cable it came with.

I went to Frys, and the first HDMI cable I saw was the $150 "monster cable'
version. So I look a little further, and I see a $15 cable by some middle of
the road cable company. I look further, down on the bottom, and I see a $1.50
HDMI cable with no brand.

as far as I can tell, they were the same gold-plated HDMI cable. Of course, I
bought the cheapest version and it worked just fine.

I mean, I always spend the extra money for ECC ram and for 'enterprise' or
'raid edition' drives in stuff that matters. Yeah, if I get more of what I
want for the money, I'll pay more. But I have to see evidence that I'm getting
more of what I want. I'm unwilling to pay extra for a label that says I paid
extra.

~~~
itmag
Is it just me, or do jeans seem very cheap in America?

In Sweden, a pair of regular Levi's jeans might cost you 1000 SEK, which is
about $136. The designer jeans might cost 1500+ SEK.

~~~
lsc
Levi's are what I'd call 'designer jeans' or maybe low end designer jeans. I
mean, uh, I might be using that word incorrectly, but yeah, they are very
expensive compared to off-brand jeans of similar quality. (I believe you can
mostly evaluate the quality of jeans with your eyes and your hands.) I dono
exactly how much I'd pay for them here, just, well, probably more than I'm
willing to pay.

~~~
maxerickson
Levi's are "Name brand" or something like that. The more expensive stuff in
box stores are designer branded or something like that, not actually designer
clothing.

Macy's is probably the low end for actual designer stuff.

And yeah, jeans are cheaper in the U.S., Levi's go for ~$40-$60.

~~~
lsc
ah. Then I am using the word incorrectly, and I have no experience with
designer clothing. I guess it could be great? seems unlikely, but what do I
know? The designer brand stuff sounds like what I'm talking about- it's
clearly made to look a certain way, and long-term durability has little to do
with it.

------
berntb
I got a really good workgroup printer, paid more than twice as much as for a
cheap one.

I loved it but had to leave it when I moved -- just too heavy.

(And anyway, the Mac support wasn't good a couple of O/S versions later, but
it still worked well with Linux.)

My takeaway from this has more to do with negotiating moving packages (and
Samsung support of old customers, grumble) than anything else.

