Show
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I actually have this idea that this "boots" theory is outdated and/or harmful.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reputation) and shrinkflation are now so standard and ubiquitous that word of mouth quality from a year ago is quickly outdated and worthless.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
realround-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.
Folks reading this are already reading Discworld novels, so at least liberals and probably towards the left side of the liberal spectrum.
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.
That's the real kicker for the modern age. We can't even afford the shitty $10 boots
deleted by creator
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.
it's not supposed to be an economic theory. it's one dumbass thinking about how expensive it is to be poor.
deleted by creator
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.
It still does apply to boots. There are still brands that make durable, hardwearing footwear. Just having a goodyear last means you can replace the soles and extend the life of a pair of boots for a long, long time.
deleted by creator