I'm having a hard time seeing it. I'd imagine brand plays a pretty big part as well, but I just can't comprehend how a pair of shoes for several hundred dollars can actually be made significantly better than a pair for less than $100 (with the exception of things like work-boots and such). Most shoes I get manage to last anywhere between 6 months to just over a year, and I've never spent more than $80 on a pair before.Spin Echo wrote: I can't say I ever bought shoes that were $500, but considering I was tearing through the soles and leather of ~$60 shoes in three months, I can say, yes the more expensive shoes of similar design will last you longer (or at least me). The more expensive shoes of similar design also tend to fit better. My feet and legs feel better after walking and standing a bit, I don't get blisters and spots rubbed raw on my feet.
No, high cost does not always translate into high quality, but sometimes it does.
The art of dumpster diving
Moderator: Edi
- General Zod
- Never Shuts Up
- Posts: 29211
- Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
- Location: The Clearance Rack
- Contact:
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
I don't actually have the consumer report article itself, but they did a study comparing exactly what you were asking: linkGeneral Zod wrote:I'm having a hard time seeing it. I'd imagine brand plays a pretty big part as well, but I just can't comprehend how a pair of shoes for several hundred dollars can actually be made significantly better than a pair for less than $100 (with the exception of things like work-boots and such). Most shoes I get manage to last anywhere between 6 months to just over a year, and I've never spent more than $80 on a pair before.
I can only speak from my experiences. I walk a lot, so I imagine I get more wear and tear on my shoes than the average person. To me, a pair of shoes that lasts 6 months is doing better than 3, but still isn't great. Also, you're not wearing anything with heels (I assume).
Ironically, the person that convinced me I should start buying more expensive shoes if I wanted them to last was my husband, who, let's be honest, isn't remotely interested in fashion.
Doom dOom doOM DOom doomity DooM doom Dooooom Doom DOOM!
- General Zod
- Never Shuts Up
- Posts: 29211
- Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
- Location: The Clearance Rack
- Contact:
It doesn't mention anything about how long they last that I could really tell, though I'd be curious to see a similar comparison against regular sneakers and not heels.Spin Echo wrote: I don't actually have the consumer report article itself, but they did a study comparing exactly what you were asking: link
I'd imagine that has something to do with it considering the huge difference in design, since I tend to generally only wear sneakers and similar style shoes.I can only speak from my experiences. I walk a lot, so I imagine I get more wear and tear on my shoes than the average person. To me, a pair of shoes that lasts 6 months is doing better than 3, but still isn't great. Also, you're not wearing anything with heels (I assume).
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
The actual consumer report may have something on that; I couldn't get access to that though.General Zod wrote:It doesn't mention anything about how long they last that I could really tell, though I'd be curious to see a similar comparison against regular sneakers and not heels.Spin Echo wrote: I don't actually have the consumer report article itself, but they did a study comparing exactly what you were asking: link
It's not just high heels I was refering to though. I've had the problem of wearing out in a few months with all sorts of shoes. I haven't worn sneakers for a long time (except as exercise shoes) and my problem with wearing shoes out started when I hit college, so I can't say how well they hold up.I'd imagine that has something to do with it considering the huge difference in design, since I tend to generally only wear sneakers and similar style shoes.I can only speak from my experiences. I walk a lot, so I imagine I get more wear and tear on my shoes than the average person. To me, a pair of shoes that lasts 6 months is doing better than 3, but still isn't great. Also, you're not wearing anything with heels (I assume).
Doom dOom doOM DOom doomity DooM doom Dooooom Doom DOOM!
Back to actual dumpster diving, move-out time at colleges are a good time to get stuff. I remember there were always boxes out for donations of nonperishable foods and it wouldn't be good to raid those, but people were tossing out lots of perfectly good clothes, furniture, office supplies, carpets, and so on. Heck, you might not even have to get in the dumpster. People with already overflowing cars are often glad if you'll take the extra vacuum and chairs they can't fit.
DPDarkPrimus is my boyfriend!
SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
Military barracks are the same way, when someone is moving out they tend the throw away lots of perfectly useable things.
I can never love you because I'm just thirty squirrels in a mansuit."
"Ah, good ol' Popeye. Punching ghosts until they explode."[/b]-Internet Webguy
"It was cut because an Army Ordnance panel determined that a weapon that kills an enemy soldier 10 times before he hits the ground was a waste of resources, so they scaled it back to only kill him 3 times."-Anon, on the cancellation of the Army's multi-kill vehicle.
"Ah, good ol' Popeye. Punching ghosts until they explode."[/b]-Internet Webguy
"It was cut because an Army Ordnance panel determined that a weapon that kills an enemy soldier 10 times before he hits the ground was a waste of resources, so they scaled it back to only kill him 3 times."-Anon, on the cancellation of the Army's multi-kill vehicle.
You would be amazed at what people throw out. College campuses and military base housing are perfect for this, people will throw out perfectly serviceable things simply because they don't have room or are too lazy to do anything else with it. I got a TV that way.Superman wrote:Man, how hard up are you guys for cash?
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
Yeah, I pick up free (but pretty outdated) computers from government surplus and practically all my clothes are either factory 2nds or bought from clearance warehouse stores. But my mountain bikes are pretty much the best that money can buy, and when I'm buying meat it's always prime rib, striploin, swordfish, steelhead trout and all the other good stuff. To me it's all about priorities, if it's important to me I'll blow wads of money on it without much of a second thought, stuff that ain't important I'll find a way to cheap out.Phantasee wrote:Some people make do with cheaper footwear, and some people make do with cheaper computers. The difference in spending usually shows up elsewhere.
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me.
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either.
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either.
Getting food from dumpsters is seldom logical.The thread on Frugalism and all the Peak Oil threads has got me wondering what was the best way to scavenge good stuff from the neightborhood (or for those who are more cynical, how to take advantage of other people's wastefulness).
When is the best time to go looking for discarded stuff? How often should you go? And for scavenging for food, what is the best, least diarhea-inducing way to secure good food for free (or at least at a discount)?
A box of twelve 3-oz Maruchan Ramen Noodle packets (chicken flavor, beef flavor, etc.) sells for something like $2.50 in a supermarket such as Walmart, where each of the dozen packets is 190 calories, and the cost is proportionally like spending $2 for 2000 calories in a day, for food that can be quickly prepared with water in a microwave. Of course, it wouldn't be healthy to live on that alone, but such is an example of inexpensive food that can be one component of a cheap diet if someone was that short on money.
Precooked canned baked beans that cost $0.20/ounce ($3/pound) in a small major-brand-name container may cost just $0.05/ounce ($0.80/pound) in a large can by a different supplier, literally a factor of four price difference per unit weight. Big bags of rice, sugar, beans, etc. purchased in bulk at a supermarket are cheaper per unit volume.
Many people incorrectly think that the most inexpensive form of eating is fast food. However, not only does such tend to be a high fat unhealthy diet, proportionally it is typically around $5+ per 2000 calories, such as a ~ 400 to 450 calorie burger costing $1 or more. It's at least double the cost per day obtainable if aiming for minimum food costs when selecting food at a supermarket.
Someone dumpster diving is likely to spend as much or more than a half-hour of time to get a day's worth of food, but, even if they worked at a minimum wage job making $6/hour, such an amount of time spent at work could better provide the $2 or $3/day minimum for healthy food without such a risk of disease. Time is money.
(Of course, there is also the option if someone was that desperate of government assistance or going to a charitable organization operating a food pantry giving free food).
Minimum food expenses are on the order of $2 to $3 per day or $50-$100 a month. The biggest expense is rent, e.g. around $400/month for a low-end apartment in most places in the U.S. (although many people even with low incomes get into deep debt to buy a $200000 house instead, like buying a $30000 new vehicle instead of a near-identical used vehicle for $5000).
The individual described in the frugalism thread is penny-wise and pound-foolish, having tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars put into a duplex but not spending a thousand dollars a year on basic, sanitary food to replace whatever she spends many manhours of unpaid labor collecting from dumpsters.
It's not worth it for someone to eat food from dumpsters and risk getting huge hospital bills if it is contaminated.