
Spend the Money for the Good Boots, and Wear Them Forever - mgav
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/your-money/spend-the-money-for-the-good-boots-and-wear-them-forever.html?ref=business
======
coldtea
> _I would have had to buy those $50 pants at least 17 more times over the
> years, spending more than $800, to get as much use out of them as I have
> from my Moonstone pants. Not only would I have had the cognitive, emotional
> and logistical drain of perpetually having to replace the old pants, as I’ve
> alluded to in a previous column, but I would have spent more than twice as
> much money in the long run._

On the other hand, with the cheaper boots:

1) you could also follow fashion (different style every year or so),

2) you wouldn't care as much about damaging/etc them (like some people e.g.
buy an expensive car and then are paranoid about keeping it new and mark free
to the point that they don't enjoy it [1]).

3) You would have $250 left on hand that first year (that instead took you 5
more years to recuperate), which, depending on inflation, your needs at the
time, etc, might be better than saving $500 over 17 years.

4) And, of course, while this might work for boots and similar ever-same
goods, for stuff whose tech progresses rapidly and market is commoditized,
e.g. smartphones, the $1000 model you'd buy in a year would end up useless
compared to modern devices in 3-4 years, and with no resale value (a twice as
capable new model could end up costing $200).

[1] Ferris Buller's friends father would be a typical example.

