to roll my eyes every time some amateur economist trots out the 'Vimes Boot Theory'

[another1bitestheduck]

It's quoted constantly on here. I imagine there are some occasions when the underlying principle is accurate, and broadly agree that we should all try to buy less fast fashion/disposable land fill plastic crap if possible. But it's really not as applicable to most situations as posters like to think it is.

Particularly with clothes - if I followed the VBT I should spend more money on well cut clothes with good fabrics - e.g. £89-95 for a plain white shirt for somewhere like Joules or Cos rather than a £5 one from primark. Or £300 on a good quality pair of leather boots/handbag compared to £19.99 plastic ones from new look. The idea being that the 'high quality' item will outlast the money spent on it.

However in such examples, to justify the price, the 'nice' item would have to last 15-18x longer than the cheap one. So it's only an investment if:

• I never lose or put on any weight over the 15-30 years it's got to last me to be worth the initial outlay
• The expensive item never needs any additional cost to maintain its use e.g. boot re-heeling, dry cleaning etc.
• My circumstances never change, e.g. I never go from working in an office where I need a smart capsule wardrobe to WFH where I wear joggers every day, or ever have any short term needs e.g. pregnancy clothes I'll only wear once or twice.
• I'm okay with still wearing items that went out of fashion decades ago rather than updating my look
• The assumption that the more expensive item is actually of any better quality (really not always the case!)
• I don't lose/stain/rip/otherwise damage the expensive item early on and therefore lose the whole value of the investment
• Nobody nicks the item - which is significantly MORE likely and more devastating if you get a more expensive item

But even applied to other things - spending more isn't necessarily any guarantee of quality any more, e.g. white goods/electrical big items - I've had cheapy ones that lasted years, and expensive ones that have broken the day after the 1/3/5 years warranty. Hair straighteners, mobile phones...so many things that you can get 90% of the quality for 10% of the price. Even food - yes some things are definitely worth spending on, for better taste or animal welfare purposes. But there are a LOT of things (rolled oats are the first thing that come to mind!) where I could do a blind taste test and in no way be able to tell the difference between the asda smart price and the health shop finest versions.

So (dons hard hat) AIBU to (despite being a fan of Discworld) think that the VBT was a throwaway line in a populist novel about trolls and witches and not the definitive line in social economic theory 30 years later?

Being poor is expensive thus traps you.....
Ramble below.....

Even if we ignore the boots theory of which applies to spending more on everything from appliances to clothing due to cheaper needing to be replaced...
and that the bank will literally give you money for having money. I know of people who live off the interest of money they have.

A poor credit score means that you get given bad borrowing rates, borrow a £100 for 6 months and the person with a poor credit score on a we lend any one money loan could be paying 200 vs the best credit cards will be 0% apr. Look at how much it costs for going in your overdraft, or the fine for missing minum credit card payments. They just add more debt which increases the amount your paying interest

The poorer you are the more likely you are to rent for example which is often more expensive than equivilant mortgage payments. If you have a poor credit score, often the only places that accept you are massively overpriced because they know your options are limited.

If you bought this house outright then you would have spent 247k over in 35 years at £588 a month, mortgaged it would be 411k over the 35 years and 970 a month, and rented (even if the price didnt change) the equivilant house next door would be 1350 a month and you'd have no flat at the end of it of paying over 35 years and spent £567k.

Mortgage rates are also dependent on credit score, and if for example you put down a 5% deposit for that house rather than 10%,
its only 12k in cash, but 40k over the mortgage.

Klarna, pay later options are everywhere.
My fridge from currys costs 329 vs the pay weekly sites/ no credit check sites would cost me £1131 when you add the installments. Or a washing machine on a different site is 988 and you dont own it/ they take it away after 2 years, AO will sell it to you for 429.

In order to pay your car insurance monthly you need to pass a credit check, the worse the score the worse the rate. You pay an average of £60 more if you dont pay it in a lump sum

My car tax is 10% more if i pay it in 2 installments rather than one. Even things like people less likely to have driveways, thus more likely to be charged more by insurance and more likely to be paying for permits. You live in a rough area? Car insurance, house insurance etc will cost more

hell if i had more savings then my dog wouldnt be insured, i pay £30 a month for the security of knowing im protected from big vet bills. my last dog had about 4,000 pounds in his life paid for insurance that he never needed. But as i didnt have easy access to cash i had to continue pay it.

If you consider energy bills eg. If you have more money then your more likely to be in a property with better insulation, more likely to be in a property with more efficient appliences and boiler so your bills will be lower in a similar size property. Your more likely to be reliant of expensive heating soloutions like electric fan heaters,
if you live in rented accomodation and its more likely to have no double glazing etc. On top of that pre payment electric meters (more common in low cost accomodation, for people with poor credit scores), charge you more than monthly

If your poorer your more likely to be spending more eg more on car maintenance on older cars, more on public transport etc to jobs which pay less because you can't afford the commute to a big city or public transport doesn't serve it.

Everymonth youll be paying more to exist.

References:
www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/england-32250206-92549214?s=addc52930a27cb685a7c9eca793ba646a02f443d7afc59edfa3553e5d302bff2#/
www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/63540100/?search_identifier=33d4e66a36210560ef87b4dab8b3c5ec
www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/england-32250206-92549214?s=addc52930a27cb685a7c9eca793ba646a02f443d7afc59edfa3553e5d302bff2#/

www.which.co.uk/news/article/car-insurance-how-much-could-you-save-by-paying-annually-aFy4N1U8d5Yv
www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables/rates-for-cars-registered-on-or-after-1-march-2001
www.payweeklyworld.co.uk/product/beko-60cm-fridge-freezer/
www.currys.co.uk/products/beko-cxfg3552w-5050-fridge-freezer-white-10208616.html
ao.com/product/ww90ta046ae-samsung-series-5-ecobubble-washing-machine-white-76974-1.aspx?
www.appliancesdirect.co.uk/content/pay-weekly-appliances

It's not about boots

How did you write this essay (with references) in two minutes?

But it is overwhelmingly more expensive to be poor, especially in terms of essentials. You won't get a mortgage and you'll have less to spend on rent, so your home might be harder to heat, or further away from amenities, or just small so you don't have room for a slow cooker and a freezer. So heating, travel, food cost more. And you'll be on a meter so fuel will cost more again. If you need a car you'll probably have to buy an older model, which is less fuel efficient, and breaks down, so you're spending money on repairs and failed MOTs.

OP your argument falls down because you probably don't actually need the blouse.

Even things like permits and train passes. If you pay out lots of money in one go for a train season pass or a monthly bus pass then it's going to be a bit cheaper than people who can only afford the weekly pass, and far more than people who can only do daily

Some things are better the more you pay to a certain extent. A £40 bedframe from argos is unlikely to be heirloom quality but a £500 one might be (but agree there's unlikely to be a difference between 3000 pound bedframe and a 500 one).

I live in a poorer area and my Facebook selling sites are bloody expensive because people need the money . Things are often half the price in the nicer area 40 Min away. The nearest TV stand to me is being sold commonly for 25 pounds ish but is on give and takery pages in my parents more wealthy area

the poorer you are the easier it is to exploit you, that's why

It's everything though - down to toilet rolls - the moment money is tight you have to buy stuff that costs less, ie. in smaller quantities. Sure, maybe it's not years difference, but that extra 50% that it costs to buy your rolls in a 4 pack for 2.50 vs a 9 pack for 4 quid all builds up.

@neverknowinglyunreasonable
I wrote it in another thread earlier today!

It's a real bug bear of mine!

Yeah, you can't apply this to tshirts from Cos. You can probably apply it to boots - e.g. goretex vs primark, to borrowing, to cars, to furniture, etc.

But the link between cost and quality doesn't really exist in fashion any more, or in many electrical goods. But the point does remain, that it costs to be poor.

The VBT works and isn't a throwaway line but the problem in our current society is that manufacturers have caught on that even at expensive prices it's better to sell you fast fashion and justify the additional cost by hyping up the brand instead of making the clothes necessarily better quality so a £15 shirt may not wear out quicker than an £80 one.

Furniture would be a much better example in today's world. You buy a cheap bookcase and as soon as you move it it'll start getting damaged and you'll need to keep buying them every few years, adding up to more than an expensive good quality one. Whereas a good quality one lasts so long that eventually you (or your descendants more like) will not only not have saved money not buying replacements but may even get your money back when it's an antique/vintage piece! That demonstrates modern VBT better.

It certainly doesn't work these days because even expensive stuff doesn't last. I always used to buy good products (kettles, radios etc) on the basis that if I spend £100 on a microwave it'll last longer than a £20 one. But it doesn't. So now I've given up and I buy cheap shit and hope for the best.
However I got an ancient washing machine for free about 8th hand from a friend and it lasted me 20 years!

It's not meant to be taken literally.

VBT works, because it's not talking about fashion.

It's about the boots he needs as essential kit to carry out his job

So he has to have them, and they will wear out. It's a case of whether over 10+ years he had 1 good pair which function properly for $50
Or he buys the ones he can afford now, at $10, which last 2 years tops, but don't keep him either dry or comfortable at work. But which over 10 years cost at least as much.

The argument isn't about clothes, but about the need to buy poorer quality if you can't afford items that work really well. But which cost you more in the long run.

Trying to think of non-clothes example. Maybe a Miele dishwasher, which is getting on for a grand, but which is built to last 20 years+ During which period you might need to replace the one you can afford (say a Beko at about £300) three or four times. And Beko uses more power and more water than a Miele. Meaning you've spent the same or more, plus had higher energy and water consumption

I think you have to know what it's worth spending more on, and what it isn't. The quality of everything has gone downhill of late.

I think it does apply well to shoes as you usually get what you pay for. I remember the kids being very little and came home with holey shoes, i didn't have much til next payday so bought absolute cheapest plastic crap just to get through. They were in the bin within a few days.
However, being poor means you have only set amounts to spend on things, so if there's a special offer a little higher in price for a much better deal, it's not doable as you don't have the same flexibility. It's like PAYG energy or meters, worse value than if you can afford the level pay or Dad's.

Or direct debit not dad!

Roll your eyes at a mirror because the only issue here is you didn't understand the quote, despite having apparently read it many many times.

Yeah, the point is not the finer details of expensive stuff being better quality and how reliable/lasting it might be for other reasons - the point is simply that being poor is expensive, and also uncomfortable.

The boots theory is nothing to do with its fashion and everything to do with essentials - and it still applies today.

Rent is more expensive than a mortgage, but many people can't save for a mortgage while paying extortionate amounts of rent.

One expensive car will last you say, ten years, but if you can't afford one, you have to buy old bangers that need replacing regularly and cost more in the long run.

Buying food in bulk is more expensive initially but cheaper in the long run. However if you can't afford the bulk payment you have no choice but to pay more expensive, smaller items.

It's cheaper to buy a phone or insurance in bulk than to pay monthly, but if you don't have the annual amount available, you have to pay monthly which costs more.

So where I live the poorer suburbs don't have access to supermarkets only corner shops.

I also have an ongoing debate with buying stuff at home bargains/B and M as some of their stuff is crap quality but other things are absolute gems!

The difference is the purchasing cycle is much faster these days. Things aren't made to last these days, on purpose. I know this firsthand as my dad has worked in manufacturing (C-suite) for decades and decades.

I think it's not literal as others have said, but I voted YANBU because I am so sick of seeing people copy and paste it, it's a great succinct piece of writing but it's so overused all over the internet and people expect it to be some great revelation that nobody has ever heard before!

I just love that it's having its day. I remember first reading it when the book came out and it really struck me, but no-one else had heard of it (and Pratchett was seen as a slightly odd, nerdy reading choice).

I've never actually heard it called that, nor read that author, but it certainly rings true. So I don't think this is a throw-away line, so please, no eye-rolling.

It does indeed cost more to be poor. A lot of people don't have access to a car to to to a large discount store (costco for example), nor the pantry or freezer space to store all the bulk items. So they end up buying small quantities of lower quality goods because that is all they can afford on short term, making it even harder to get ahead.

And, I don't know any rich people with one pair of boots!

OP, I think you are being unreasonable.

VBT just means that poor people are forced to over-pay due to their poverty.

Recent example being the forced installation of pre-payment meters into the homes of the poorest people in the UK, including disabled and unwell, so that their electricity costs per unit were significantly higher than those rich enough to use regular meters.

The other one has to do with food poverty - e.g. I have an elderly neighbour, a widow who is registered blind and so cannot drive. The only food shop she can reach on foot with her guide dog is the Co-Op which is poorly-stocked and where a packet of pasta or loaf of bread costs 25-30% more than when I drive to Aldi to shop for her.

If she weren't so disadvantaged she could pay less for food; because she's disadvantaged she is forced to pay the higher prices.

I don't think all of your points about clothes are wrong, but I think there are MANY situations in life where VBT applies and your points (e.g. about staining etc) would not.