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?

I think it holds true for most things, if you don't confuse high fashion with quality.

This. The idea that there is only a £5 option or a £95 option is, frankly, daft.

The principle is real. Vimes Boot Theory is now 30 years old. The related term "false economy" has been around over 250 years. "Buy Cheap, Buy Twice" is an old saying I can remember my grandparents using.

A (horrible) term for the same thing used in the US is "ghetto tax".

It does cost more to be poor. Lots of examples outlined above.

Inflation is also an interesting one.

Inflation is a measure of the typical basket of goods. But when you have little money, you tend to have a basket of goods which is more essential spending than the goods found in the typical basket.

Food inflation, energy inflation - is much more than typical inflation - and food and energy form a much higher proportion of poorer people's spending.

But benefits, wage increases - are tied to inflation, not the higher food inflation.

You are being too literal.

@another1bitestheduck you should spend money on organic rolled oats.

Non organic oats have really high levels of chemicals in them, oats are one of the first foods you should consider buying organic.

Vimes Boot Theory is not meant to be a criticism of individual people for fast fashion or cheap consumerism (although I do think these are Bad Things generally). Not is it intended as a criticism of poor people for being feckless and making poor financial choices like buying cheaper 'throwaway' items. It's a criticism of capitalism as a financial system really. If you've done the maths and overall you think the cheaper, Primark shirt is the better choice for you, then great, go ahead. The point is if you are really, genuinely, breadline poor, you can't make that choice. You can't even decide to go without x item to buy y item, you only just have enough money as it is, so it's cheap shitty quality shoes or no shoes. Whereas a really rich person can choose cheap shoes (and replace them often), medium quality shoes and repair them when they go wrong or the super rich can buy solid gold shoes or a shoe factory and have free shoes for life. The point is in a lot of cases money begets money, and the richer you are the easier to optimise your choices, whether in clothes or housing or cars or bank accounts or utilities or education or whatever...

Well the boots thing is true. I bought a pair of boots for about £170ish, must be 15 years ago. They still look lovely, I still wear them, they've been re-soled once for about £20, so £190 pounds for 15 years and still going strong.

Before them I bought a pair of £40 boots that barely lasted the winter. Before that £80 boots that lasted two years. If I'd carried on like that and not spent the extra I'd have spent £600 rather than £190.

I couldn't buy the £170 boots now, and we're having the the same problem with DHs shoes. He desperately needs a new pair, but the ones we can afford won't last, so we're going to be caught in that cycle.

You completely miss the point of the theory. It is not that you should always buy the higher quality item. It is that sometimes buying the higher quality item is cheaper in the long run, but a person in poverty can’t take advantage of that efficiency.

sometimes, buying a series of primark shirts is the wiser personal investment, no matter how much money you have in the bank. A person with money has the freedom to make that a decision, not a default

Tldr

@EilonwyWithRedGoldHair I agree with you there - & I think it it goes with the thread. I wore this evening a pair of boots I bought for a similar amount probably about 20 odd years ago and have resoled and reheeled & they are still going strong. But this was before we had children. I have looked after those boots ( & OK they won't be on the Milan catwalks any time soon but they are a pretty classic style ) - after children my suits etc for work had to be cheaper because the budget only went so far.

My mother said as @jcyclops says - buy cheap , buy twice. But I do agree if you need some shoes or a new coat or DCs have grown out of uniform or whatever - it is what you have in the pot - it is somewhat of a luxury to buy something for £XXX which might last for ages or to buy something for £X because it is necessary and you need it now and that is the budget.

Shame on me I had not heard of VBT but do I have the gist - I shall google it

You don't seem to have grasped the concept at all.

I remember 'the cheap comes out expensive' from Moonstruck.

The concept isn't SirTP's but he does write a mean metaphor. <sigh>

Mmm I have to say OP twist the saying how ever you like, but as PP's have said I only know it as buy cheap buy twice and the saying pretty much holds true from personal experience, coming from some one who has grown up very poor and now only very recently earning a good salary.

The more I have made the more I find ways to get things that last and ways to pay that save me money have opened up tremendously. I pay less interest, and paying yearly most cases or in bulk saves me loads.

Your not applying correctly, your comparing getting by with high income, whereas the stark contrast is between getting by and skint.

Say you have 2 people on minimum wage, person A is able to save £10/month and person B isn't. When person A's washing machine brakes, they take £50 from their savings and get a second hand one from gumtree.

When person B's brakes they don't have that option so have to use a credit card. You need cash for gumtree etc, so they have to buy new at £200 (cheapest on ao). If they then repay the credit card at £10/month, it will take 2 years and cost another £50 in interest (£250 in total vs £50).

And that's if everything goes well, which is far from garenteed, as person B didn't and still doesn't have an extra £10/month, there will most likely be mist payments and additional charges. If they miss 2/3 payments a year and are charged £20-30 in fees each time (which is also added to the credit card debt), it could easily end up costing double that by the time they clear it.

It’s a solid basic theory. My third baby is wearing the boden my first and second wore, and also some supermarket stuff as some of that is well made. But some of the cheaper stuff incl some not all next has gone to shit, so that’s not passed on. Much cheaper what I’ve bought once than 3 times! I have clothes that are 20 years old.

if our car broke down and repairing it didn’t make sense I’d buy a new one. People who can’t afford it have to throw good money after bad because they can’t afford to buy a better car, even though the fix will only last so long. Etc etc. why so critical? Where did you get the idea this example was really all about Cos shirts therefore it’s rubbish?

It's not an economic theory or a new thing, it is just an easy and relatable way of describing an actual economic concept - the Poverty Premium.

I'm going to point out that Terry Pratchett stole the concept of the cheap vs expensive boots almost word for word from The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robbert Tressell which was written in 1913. The bit about the boots is in chapter 32. It really annoys me when people attribute the concept to Terry Pratchet.

I think as said by others that the VBT is far more about the poverty trap than about material goods, and that it's actually pretty accurate.

Sheesh, sometimes it’s difficult to how to respond, but this, from derek, pretty much covers all the angles.

This 👆