I’ve been considering buying a pair of these because they look so good. But, that’s a lot of money for someting I would only wear on the occasional night out on the town. They’re not very compatable with riding a motorcycle to and from work every day, especially when I consider that the shifter would scuff them up.
To speak to the OP, I started online ordering better workboots (Justin Roper lace-ups) rather than just pickup up what was on sale at the factory outlet. The better boots last longer and they look better longer. They are also more comfortable and supporting.
No such luck. I really need double wides, which are almost impossible to find. I can wear wides as long as it’s a round toe style, usually. Not always. I dream of having enough money to get bespoke shoes.
This is, perhaps a bit perversely, why I rely on Payless. I know it’s crap; they know I know it’s crap; we’re all on the same page with it, with no pretension, and because it’s frankly damn cheap crap, I don’t feel cheated! Reliability and consistency (even if it’s reliably crap) may be valued higher than inflated cachet that disappoints, at least for thrifty shoppers.
IMO, cheap shoes hurt your feet over the long run because they don’t have the fit and support your feet may need. Different brands and different lines (within brands) of good shoes will work for some people and not for others. I expect a $40 pair of shoes to have no arch support, no heel cup and no metatarsal support. I recently bought an $60 pair of fashion boots that fit this description. I bought them because I knew I wouldn’t wear them often and I could add a liner that would solve the support problem adequately for me. In a couple of years the boots will be out of style but I will have gotten sufficient wear out of them that I won’t feel bad tossing them.
On the other hand, I just bought a $150 pair of waterproof hiking boots (brand: Ahnu) that were worth every penny and more. They offer wonderful support and breathability and I know, from having bought other Ahnu shoes, that they will last for several years. I can’t imagine that I will ever consider these uncomfortable. I will be able to wear them all day while standing at rainy or dewy outdoor events with no problem. Since I do that a lot, the money spent on these shoes was a no-brainer.
Nope. All 3 (Audi, BMW, Merc) are obsessed with their price points that they be almost indistinguishable across the board with the 3 big models. Go ask your sales manager, he’ll tell you whats up.
In order to keep costs low…they’re starting to export their 5 series…from China.
Edit: In the recession, they’ve tried extremely hard to keep the price constant. People immediately see that they don’t get free services, they don’t automatically see the soft touch plastics in the rear of the car are shit.
[QUOTE=Terry Pratchett]
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
[/QUOTE]
So obligatory , it’s already been posted, see #58. And, unfortunately afaik, Terry Pratchett doesn’t post here, so I doubt the “Originally Posted by Terry Pratchett” part.
Reliability and consistency (even if it’s reliably crap) may be valued higher than inflated cachet that disappoints, at least for thrifty shoppers.