This might be a bit of a ramble and it could have gone in my journal, but I thought maybe it’d be OK for its own discussion.
I have a tendency to be ‘loyal’ (word choice of DW) to many of my possessions, including clothes. That is, I don’t get rid of them. I continue to use them even though they may be past their best. I have actually had the urge for a long time to throw out a whole ‘set’ of items (such as my clothes) and rebuy an entire new ‘set’ that works together. For example, buying a complete new wardrobe that is somewhat minimal and functional rather than mixing and matching bits and pieces from different eras, including perhaps gifts that aren’t quite to my taste. Clothes is just one example, you might say the same thing for, say, towels, or kitchenware. But I resist this urge (even though it’s kind of always niggling at the back of my mind), and I had an experience that demonstrates why this refusal to give in is the correct approach.
My socks were getting worn so I decided, before my recent move, to throw them all out and buy a new set all of the same type. Socks are cheap so this was no big deal. They came in packs of three (pairs), so I got two packs for a total of six pairs.
The very first day wearing new socks, I took off my shoes at the end of the day to see I’d already worn a hole in one of them.
The moral of this story? It’s easy to think there’s some kind of ‘solution’ that can be had by buying new things. That once you’ve made a purchase, your mind will be set at ease and one particular issue will be removed from your life. Actually, most of the time, after you buy something you will still have the same problem, it’s just that you’ll have less money as well.
The Parable of the Socks
Re: The Parable of the Socks
I agree with the sentiment, but you ought to get a refund for those socks!
I have also found that owning expensive things tends to cause more stress than joy. I'd rather own moderate or cheap ones that I can easily replace when they become lost, broken or ruined (a common occurrence in a house with three boys).
I have also found that owning expensive things tends to cause more stress than joy. I'd rather own moderate or cheap ones that I can easily replace when they become lost, broken or ruined (a common occurrence in a house with three boys).
Re: The Parable of the Socks
it really depends for brute. some types of things, even the tiniest annoyance will multiply in his mind and become unbearable. squeaky/bad laptop keyboards come to mind. brute would pay $3,000 for a good laptop, because he finds bad ones unbearably bad, to the point where he'd rather not have one than a bad one. *
on the other hand, especially in clothing, he finds that higher quality simply does not exist. more expensive in clothing seems to mean brand and cut, not quality. the difference in quality from buying $150 dress shirts to $40 shirts is non-existent. they are cut better, and they look better, but the quality is not better.
there is of course a "too cheap", where things will fall apart after just weeks of regular use, for example in shoes. cheap shoes (<$50) will come apart after weeks, because the sole is glued cheaply instead of being stitched or welted or whatever quality shoes do. but after crossing that first hurdle, brute has not seen higher prices make a quality difference. once in the $80-$150 range for a pair, higher price does not seem to command higher quality any longer.
brute has also found domains of items in which higher price means worse performance, and by a lot. example is mostly furniture and beds. apart from looks, expensive chairs and sofas and even office chairs are WAY worse ergonomically, not nearly as comfortable and supportive, and often flimsier made. all the extra money spent is literally buying negative RoI. the ergonomically best bed brute couldn't buy, so he had to build it himself: a 4x8 piece of plywood on a solid wood platform (to keep dust away a bit) with a thin mattress on it. slats, thick mattresses, thermo memory super duper foam, springs, everything. not just unnecessary, but actively bad for ergonomics of sleeping. the best chair would be no chair, sitting on the floor or maybe a cushion. absent that, a cheap but solid wooden chair. everything else is actively bad. shoes are the same: the more a shoe does, the worse it is for the feet.
so unfortunately, brute has found rules of thumb like "buy it once" or "go cheap" useless, because the distribution of marginal gains per price increase are so vastly different across different domains of items.
* the tendency to prefer no item in a category rather than a bad one seems to lead to brute min-maxing his possessions. he does not own a car, but if he did, it would be a very nice one. he doesn't own much furniture, especially not expensive one, but he buys pretty much the most expensive staple foods out there (meat and dairy). because bad stuff has negative value to brute, he either has good stuff or no stuff.
on the other hand, especially in clothing, he finds that higher quality simply does not exist. more expensive in clothing seems to mean brand and cut, not quality. the difference in quality from buying $150 dress shirts to $40 shirts is non-existent. they are cut better, and they look better, but the quality is not better.
there is of course a "too cheap", where things will fall apart after just weeks of regular use, for example in shoes. cheap shoes (<$50) will come apart after weeks, because the sole is glued cheaply instead of being stitched or welted or whatever quality shoes do. but after crossing that first hurdle, brute has not seen higher prices make a quality difference. once in the $80-$150 range for a pair, higher price does not seem to command higher quality any longer.
brute has also found domains of items in which higher price means worse performance, and by a lot. example is mostly furniture and beds. apart from looks, expensive chairs and sofas and even office chairs are WAY worse ergonomically, not nearly as comfortable and supportive, and often flimsier made. all the extra money spent is literally buying negative RoI. the ergonomically best bed brute couldn't buy, so he had to build it himself: a 4x8 piece of plywood on a solid wood platform (to keep dust away a bit) with a thin mattress on it. slats, thick mattresses, thermo memory super duper foam, springs, everything. not just unnecessary, but actively bad for ergonomics of sleeping. the best chair would be no chair, sitting on the floor or maybe a cushion. absent that, a cheap but solid wooden chair. everything else is actively bad. shoes are the same: the more a shoe does, the worse it is for the feet.
so unfortunately, brute has found rules of thumb like "buy it once" or "go cheap" useless, because the distribution of marginal gains per price increase are so vastly different across different domains of items.
* the tendency to prefer no item in a category rather than a bad one seems to lead to brute min-maxing his possessions. he does not own a car, but if he did, it would be a very nice one. he doesn't own much furniture, especially not expensive one, but he buys pretty much the most expensive staple foods out there (meat and dairy). because bad stuff has negative value to brute, he either has good stuff or no stuff.
Re: The Parable of the Socks
I can appreciate brute's insight. This reminds me of the conversation that I have with new hay customers.
I have come to depend on educated customers. If they don't know the difference, they should buy on price. Only after you have suffered the subtle pain of the lack of quality, can you relate to the concept of value.
Value creates repeat business and loyal customers. That is the purpose of branding. Corporate America has sold their soul too many times. The pencil pushers have compromised long term value for short term profits. The CEO raised the stock for the board of directors, cashed in and moved on.
I have come to depend on educated customers. If they don't know the difference, they should buy on price. Only after you have suffered the subtle pain of the lack of quality, can you relate to the concept of value.
Value creates repeat business and loyal customers. That is the purpose of branding. Corporate America has sold their soul too many times. The pencil pushers have compromised long term value for short term profits. The CEO raised the stock for the board of directors, cashed in and moved on.