this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
152 points (97.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
638 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

After buying a $70 pair of Vans at famous footwear and having them literally fall apart after using them as daily walking shoes, I’ve realized the quality of shoes overall has gone down over the last decade or so.

I don’t mind if they cost $100 or more, are there medium-light weight walking shoes that can withstand the horrors of walking on pavement? I remember checking out some Ecco shoes at the mall years ago, didn’t pull the trigger as they were almost $300 but the way the construction was described to me it sounds like those could last 5+ years.

What shoes do you have that you wear almost daily (not during the winter), and have had for almost a year but aren’t falling apart?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Piers@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I remember checking out some Ecco shoes at the mall years ago, didn’t pull the trigger as they were almost $300 but the way the construction as described to me it sounds like those could last 5+ years.

It's nearly always a false economy to try to reduce the upfront cost of footware (and a tremendous number of other things)

The Sam Vimes boots theory of socioeconomic inequality is a famous quote about how over time the more "affordable" option is often costs much more than the "expensive" option whilst also being a worse experience.

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 the 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.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

– Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago

The problem is not all fifty dollar boots are equal. Some are ten dollar boots with nice packaging.

And some boots used to be good, but have since been bought out by Mike Ashley and run into the ground.

[–] Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Wondered how far I'd have to scroll to find this.

GNU

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

You cannot afford to buy cheap things.