Originally Posted by azwantapaint
The boots aren't cheap, but they are well worththe money.
I bought a cheap pair of boots at big 5 for $37. They lasted 8 months.
I spent $250 for my custom boots.
They lasted ten years.
Which boots were more cost effective?
The cheap boots cost me $4.82/month.
The custom boots cost just over $2 a month.
Essentially, I saved enough by buying top quality to pay for a new pair when the originals wore out.
Yes, the startup cost is a little high, but my health, comfort, and longevity of the footwear more than paid for themselves in the long run.
In fact, for my birthday this year, my old, battered, worn, and torn boots are going back to Stewart's, so they can make me a new pair using the old ones as the pattern.
They still remember me from when I bought myfirst pair there many years ago.
Can't beat that with a stick!
Posted via Mobile Device
A real life example of — the Captain Samuel Vimes “Boots” theory of socioeconomic unfairness
“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 a 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