The Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness – as applied to boots
Posted: Wed May 08, 2019 11:40 am
There has been the occasional reference to the Vimes 'boots' theory (hereafter, the "Theory") in these forums over the past decade but there has not, I think, been an exploration of whether or not the Theory actually applies to boots.
You will recall the theory from Terry Pratchett's Men at Arms:
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
The Theory is often used as a shorthand for the received wisdom that if you can afford to spend your money on a consumer good in a way that saves you money later, you are much better off: more savings over time, better comfort, better performance, and fewer repairs. To put it another way, the Theory is partly about the actual cost of a good pair of boots but secondarily about access to the price of a good pair of boots. But this post is about the fact that the Theory is wrong - in our world - at least for boots and shoes*.
My initial instinct was that the Theory would apply to footwear up to a certain price level but not above that price level because, above the price level for 'well-made durable', more cost does not mean more durability**. That's fine, the Theory is not aimed at luxury footwear but at 'well-made durable' footwear.
But, does the Theory hold true for 'well-made durable' footwear as it is understood here on these forums? On investigation, my conclusion is that it does not. The problem is what resoling (which is a labour-intensive somewhat localised step) costs for goodyear-welted footwear.
Hanwag Grunten boots (which appear to be the ERE standard for footwear) cost about $360, E280, or £260. It is possible to buy a pair of superficially-optically-not-dissimilar work-type boots for about $50, E45, or £35. Properly resoling boots such as Hanwags costs approximately $100, E100, or £100. Dressy, premium or bespoke ranges of shoes and boots can be a multiple of this***. Plus, it is at least as time consuming to get shoes and boots resoled as it is to buy a new pair.
So, you can wear through two or three pairs of cheaper but nevertheless decent and reasonably durable boots for the price of one resole on one's Hanwags, and still be ahead of the game- as there is a much smaller upfront investment. My brother, who works outside, does this. He buys cheapish work boots, wears them out, then bins them.
I conjecture that the Theory may hold water (if you will forgive the pun) in a world where there is no efficient mass production of footwear. It is thus a reasonable socioeconomic theory for the feudal society in which it was posited. I quite accept the view prevalent on these forums that, having used up all the fossil fuels on transporting plastic shit around the world, we are heading back that way; but, for the next seventy-five years or so at least, my conclusion is that the Theory does not apply. The cost-optimal solution is to buy the cheapest pair of boots that fit comfortably and provide the required basic protection, and throw them away when they break.
Alternatively, I am making an error in assuming that Hanwag Grunten boots are not a luxury product.
Please do not think I am advocating that one not purchase goodyear-welted natural-material footwear if one can afford it, because buying natural-material footwear with a longer life span, and resoling with natural materials, is likely to be the more ecologically sound solution****. Having said which, commercial tanning can use some pretty nasty chemicals… Life involves compromise.
*There are other things for which the Theory might well hold true in our society, probably things that typically require a lot of hand labour to produce. Houses, I think it works for. Cars possibly, I don’t know, I've never owned one... I invite speculation on what other things it holds, or does not hold, for.
**To illustrate- I have a pair of bespoke shoes, made by a forty-years craftsman, with my own last etc. They cost £2,500. They look really good, even at six years old, and they are very comfortable. But, I can’t see them lasting longer than Church's 'Custom Grade' shoes at £500 a pair. And my experience is that the comfort gain is minimal if (i) the footwear is the right size***** and (ii) you wear the footwear with the right socks. So: my experience is that we can exclude 'luxury' footwear from the Theory.
***In the UK, resoling Crockett & Jones's shoes is £150; Church's Custom Grade £160; Church's premium range £290; and my bespoke shoes from £450...
****I buy good footwear, and have not always optimised for cost, although I have reined in the bespoke habit. I have experimented with all possible boot and shoe options passable in a professional environment****** over the past twenty-five years. I have at various times bought and worn (and worn out) footwear from all of the major Northampton makers- Barker, Cheaney, Church's, Crockett & Jones, Grenson, Loake, and Tricker; and occasionally from elsewhere (Timberland, RM Williams, Allen Edmonds). All this cost a fair bit of money, these shoes and boots typically run £300-£500 a pair today. I currently have five pairs of boots (walking boots, brogued country boots, three pairs of Chelsea boots) and four pairs of shoes (two pairs of black oxfords, one pair of docksiders, a pair of veltschoen). One pair dies (i.e. the upper, as opposed to the sole, wears out) approximately every two to three years. In addition, two normally require resoling, at £100 a time, in any one year- city streets are hard on shoe leather and I do a lot of miles. So, averaged out over a decade, annual shoe spend is now probably £400 annually. In my twenties, when I was 'building up the stock' so to speak, probably £600 annually*******.
*****Note: please get your feet re-measured properly, if you haven't had it done for a few years: if you are 40, your feet are not the same size they were when you were 20. Also, statement of the obvious, the lasts on which shoes and boots are constructed vary, meaning that how they feel when you put them on varies markedly even in the same maker's different products.
******Passing observation: thankfully, people these days are less likely to make decisions about whether to hire you based on your footwear. This was actually a thing back in the day.
*******I also have a three pairs of trainers and a pair of swimming shoes; they get recycled when they die which is at the rate of about one pair a year. As 'deliberately disposable' items, i.e. that break to save you breaking, I think trainers are exempt from the Theory********.
********Pratchett enjoyed a good nested footnote. He is sorely missed. I would have loved to have read his take on Brexit.
You will recall the theory from Terry Pratchett's Men at Arms:
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
The Theory is often used as a shorthand for the received wisdom that if you can afford to spend your money on a consumer good in a way that saves you money later, you are much better off: more savings over time, better comfort, better performance, and fewer repairs. To put it another way, the Theory is partly about the actual cost of a good pair of boots but secondarily about access to the price of a good pair of boots. But this post is about the fact that the Theory is wrong - in our world - at least for boots and shoes*.
My initial instinct was that the Theory would apply to footwear up to a certain price level but not above that price level because, above the price level for 'well-made durable', more cost does not mean more durability**. That's fine, the Theory is not aimed at luxury footwear but at 'well-made durable' footwear.
But, does the Theory hold true for 'well-made durable' footwear as it is understood here on these forums? On investigation, my conclusion is that it does not. The problem is what resoling (which is a labour-intensive somewhat localised step) costs for goodyear-welted footwear.
Hanwag Grunten boots (which appear to be the ERE standard for footwear) cost about $360, E280, or £260. It is possible to buy a pair of superficially-optically-not-dissimilar work-type boots for about $50, E45, or £35. Properly resoling boots such as Hanwags costs approximately $100, E100, or £100. Dressy, premium or bespoke ranges of shoes and boots can be a multiple of this***. Plus, it is at least as time consuming to get shoes and boots resoled as it is to buy a new pair.
So, you can wear through two or three pairs of cheaper but nevertheless decent and reasonably durable boots for the price of one resole on one's Hanwags, and still be ahead of the game- as there is a much smaller upfront investment. My brother, who works outside, does this. He buys cheapish work boots, wears them out, then bins them.
I conjecture that the Theory may hold water (if you will forgive the pun) in a world where there is no efficient mass production of footwear. It is thus a reasonable socioeconomic theory for the feudal society in which it was posited. I quite accept the view prevalent on these forums that, having used up all the fossil fuels on transporting plastic shit around the world, we are heading back that way; but, for the next seventy-five years or so at least, my conclusion is that the Theory does not apply. The cost-optimal solution is to buy the cheapest pair of boots that fit comfortably and provide the required basic protection, and throw them away when they break.
Alternatively, I am making an error in assuming that Hanwag Grunten boots are not a luxury product.
Please do not think I am advocating that one not purchase goodyear-welted natural-material footwear if one can afford it, because buying natural-material footwear with a longer life span, and resoling with natural materials, is likely to be the more ecologically sound solution****. Having said which, commercial tanning can use some pretty nasty chemicals… Life involves compromise.
*There are other things for which the Theory might well hold true in our society, probably things that typically require a lot of hand labour to produce. Houses, I think it works for. Cars possibly, I don’t know, I've never owned one... I invite speculation on what other things it holds, or does not hold, for.
**To illustrate- I have a pair of bespoke shoes, made by a forty-years craftsman, with my own last etc. They cost £2,500. They look really good, even at six years old, and they are very comfortable. But, I can’t see them lasting longer than Church's 'Custom Grade' shoes at £500 a pair. And my experience is that the comfort gain is minimal if (i) the footwear is the right size***** and (ii) you wear the footwear with the right socks. So: my experience is that we can exclude 'luxury' footwear from the Theory.
***In the UK, resoling Crockett & Jones's shoes is £150; Church's Custom Grade £160; Church's premium range £290; and my bespoke shoes from £450...
****I buy good footwear, and have not always optimised for cost, although I have reined in the bespoke habit. I have experimented with all possible boot and shoe options passable in a professional environment****** over the past twenty-five years. I have at various times bought and worn (and worn out) footwear from all of the major Northampton makers- Barker, Cheaney, Church's, Crockett & Jones, Grenson, Loake, and Tricker; and occasionally from elsewhere (Timberland, RM Williams, Allen Edmonds). All this cost a fair bit of money, these shoes and boots typically run £300-£500 a pair today. I currently have five pairs of boots (walking boots, brogued country boots, three pairs of Chelsea boots) and four pairs of shoes (two pairs of black oxfords, one pair of docksiders, a pair of veltschoen). One pair dies (i.e. the upper, as opposed to the sole, wears out) approximately every two to three years. In addition, two normally require resoling, at £100 a time, in any one year- city streets are hard on shoe leather and I do a lot of miles. So, averaged out over a decade, annual shoe spend is now probably £400 annually. In my twenties, when I was 'building up the stock' so to speak, probably £600 annually*******.
*****Note: please get your feet re-measured properly, if you haven't had it done for a few years: if you are 40, your feet are not the same size they were when you were 20. Also, statement of the obvious, the lasts on which shoes and boots are constructed vary, meaning that how they feel when you put them on varies markedly even in the same maker's different products.
******Passing observation: thankfully, people these days are less likely to make decisions about whether to hire you based on your footwear. This was actually a thing back in the day.
*******I also have a three pairs of trainers and a pair of swimming shoes; they get recycled when they die which is at the rate of about one pair a year. As 'deliberately disposable' items, i.e. that break to save you breaking, I think trainers are exempt from the Theory********.
********Pratchett enjoyed a good nested footnote. He is sorely missed. I would have loved to have read his take on Brexit.