Shopping second hand allows me to buy quality items cheaply and saves the items from a landfill. Much of what I end up paying goes toward creating local retail jobs and to charity projects.

Shopping second hand allows me to buy quality items cheaply and saves the items from a landfill. Much of what I end up paying goes toward creating local retail jobs and to charity projects.

My husband and I live primarily on his income (I work off and on) of 50,000/year before taxes. You really don’t have to be rich to have quality things.

(Oops, this will be double posted since I first tried doing it anonymously. Sorry about that).

Most people have too much stuff, period. Some of the poorest people I know have the most stuff. Very few people couldn’t raise $100 by selling some of that stuff. Put that together with the $20 you were going to spend on cheap shoes, and you’re on your way. Buy better, but buy less. Each purchase becomes more than just another expense, it’s an upgrade to a better life. Now you’re wearing nice shoes. You feel better, you look better, you’re more comfortable. Next year you don’t have to spend the $20 or the time to go buy a new pair of shoes. You take that money and time and invest it in something else that makes your life better and easier. And the more you build, the easier it gets.

Part of the problem is that we’re no longer wresting our survival out of raw wilderness. We don’t get that sense of building a better life, step by step. A homesteader on the frontier could remove a stump from a field, knowing that he would have that bit of cleared field to grow food on for the rest of his life. His offspring would be able to grow food on that little piece of cleared land. It was an investment, a legacy. Capital.

The average American today thinks of income and expense, and very little about building capital, which is more than just stock in a company. Capital is any durable goods and tools that either provide ongoing income or prevents expense. Good shoes are a form of capital, one that’s well within the reach of the average person.

You see, there are certain things in life I really care about. For example, my computers. Being a computer scientist, I really care about getting something great. That’s why I paid over $2000 for my Fujitsu Ultra-Portable. When it’s something very important to me, I am willing to pay a lot to get the one perfect item.

When I’m buying something I don’t care about, and doesn’t make a significant difference in my life, I get the cheapest option that gets the job done. For example, if I go to Home Depot to get a hammer, I’m going to get the cheapest one that will get the job done. The more expensive one might have a rubber grip, and be a lot nicer, but it’s not something I care about or use often enough to make a big difference.

What use do I have for mid-range products? If I care about something, I just have to do a ton of research and get the perfect one. If I don’t care, I’ll only get the bare minimum that gets the job done. In what scenario do I care enough to get something that’s better, but don’t care enough to get the best?

I read the book and unlike so many others on this topic it was NOT formulaic. It did not perpetuate classism, elitism, etc… as many people are implying. Most books on this topic are written by well-to-do people who are reprimanding people who are unable to afford more expensive products and blaming them for the ills of the world. Or there is the other preachy type of book where the author finds it cute and adventurous to write down their attempts at ‘slumming it retail style’ and giving the reader a point by point on very common sense things that the majority of the world does out of necesessity. This is neither of those and the author addresses her own economic biases in the very first part of the book.

This book is VERY thoroughly researched and has an amazing scope. This is not the usual wal-mart=bad and (insert high priced luxury item or store) whole foods=good. The whole point of this book is that ‘cheapness’ is also defined in ways other than sales price.
This is a GREAT BOOK and covers things from pricing theory, our food supply, to labor history, etc…
Please read it before you decide you don’t agree with it’s message.
THIS BOOK WAS MUCH DIFFERENT FROM IT’S COUNTERPARTS.

Except for electronics, everything I own from books to furniture is second hand.

Even toothbrushes and underpants? Ewww!

In what scenario do I care enough to get something that’s better, but don’t care enough to get the best?

The one where you don’t have $2000+ to spend on the perfect computer, but need a computer sooner than you can save up that $2000+.

It’s not caring enough to get the best, it’s being unable to get the best. Having to settle for THE WORST because the only other option is the unobtainable best is not really acceptable, but it is, unfortunately, a fact of life for many people.

The poor man, who can’t afford $160 shoes, buys $20 shoes at Wal-Mart and needs to replace them every year as the soles wear thin or split, the seams burst or the fabric cracks or tears. The rich man buys $160 shoes and has them last for twenty years in good condition, and in the end pays less than half of what the poor man pays.

If the poor man could afford $80 shoes, you could tell him to go shoeless for a year while he saves up the money, but that’s not a practical solution to his problem.

Now, the rich can sneer at the poor folks in the trailer park, and do it with a sense of moral superiority that all those stupid poor trash are the ones destroying the environment and ruining main street and messing up the economy. It isn’t the rich bankers or the government, it is the single mother that is waiting your tables who is responsible! And by purchasing things that are eco-chic (i.e. products that reject mass production and thus have built in scarcity) they once again can easily signal that they are superior to you!

This is so obnoxious. As many other’s have pointed out, poor people are often in the situation of *never* having $200 to spend at one time on such a thing as shoes. Suggesting they’re stupid shows that you really must be pretty ignorant about how little money a lot of people in our society have to get by on.

SHAMPOO – you want the highest quality, cheapest shampoo possible? Combine 1 part baking soda to 1 part water. Shake vigorously. Rub on head.

The first time I tried it I thought it was a ridiculous notion. As soon as I rinsed off my head, my hair felt cleaner and smoother than it ever had with any kind of shampoo. I swear to you, this is one of those life-changing little moments, when you realize cheap baking soda is better than all the “natural” shit companies mix together. There is no reason not to do this- it’s healthier, cheaper, better for the planet, blah blah blah. I only have to wash my hair every 3 days now- it doesn’t get oily or greasy before that. Crazy!

For conditioner, you can mix 1 part apple vinegar to 3 parts water, and then add whatever you want for fragrance if you don’t like the vinegar smell (let it sit a week or two.) I used rosemary and dill and it worked great.

I ‘aint bullshittin’!

As for clothes, the truth is sometimes expensive clothes are the same as the cheap ones, and some times they’re much better. Anyone who works in the fashion industry knows which labels are truly quality labels and which ones are pure designer hype- but most of us average folk aren’t privy to such knowledge.

I think there is no short-term solution. The poor man’s condition has been made worse in the long run by the continued reliance on cheap shoes. Maybe he bought cheap shoes in the beginning to save money, but now he buys cheap shoes because that’s all the economy will allow him to afford (which is in turn a consequence of his earlier actions.) There is a price to pay in order to break the cycle.

This is true of all the problems highlighted in the book and the OP.

The argument is valid, sort of. The missing piece is simply that, as long as there is a discrepancy of wealth, as long as some people have more than they need and others have less than they need, buying quality goods at higher prices is a luxury of the affluent. By “affluent” I include myself and probably most boingboing readers, even though we certainly wouldn’t consider ourselves to be “rich” people. Compared to most of the world, we are.

In a truly balanced system, Shell is correct- we would put time and effort into everything we made, things would last, people would feel better about their craft, consumers would take care of their things. Clearly, we need all of this- but first (or at least, concurrently) we need to have a more balanced society. Given that our government and corporations are both uninterested in letting go of their toys, that ‘aint happening anytime soon…

…not that we should stop fighting for it…

Do you think there’s no good solution to this problem? I’m not being confrontational. I am curious if there’s a practical answer.

WHERE IS CAP’N SPROUT?!?!?!!!!?????!!!!

Besides, do “high quality” products come with long warantees (if ostensibly, that’s what you’re advertising as to why I should pay all that much extra)? If not, then quit complainin’.

I’m finding the effort of looking for locally made (or closer than China) rather rewarding. Less is spent since it is frequently impossible to find a non-Chinese made consumer good in the lower categories at all, leading to realizing that it was an impulse buy or that there was a another way or the time just passed. Mindfulness has its own rewards. It also stimulates the local economy since every merchant is asked “do you have this made here?” Second hand shopping works too, since there are plenty of locally made durable goods out there that are, well, “durable”.

That said, there are plenty of counter-examples. I could buy an old Cutlass Supreme with a Chanel logo painted on the side for fairly cheap. Or I could buy a Bugatti for 1.7 million. Given my driving habits, the cheaper Cutlass would certainly be more “Luxury” after 5 years. Particularly with 1.699 million dollars stuffed into the trunk.