No it’s not. Know how I know? I’ve made at least 200 drinks with it. No leaks, no spills, nothing but sweet cocktail-shakin’ joy. Although I do find it somewhat amusing that you paid 2.5 times the price, and yours sucks.
Har.
It must be fun to create irrelevant scenarios and impugn my reading skills. But in my world, the stuff sold at House of Crap actually is crap. As such, it is uncommon to find such a fantastic deal on nearly identical items. The $15 cheese grater sold at Williams & Sonoma really is better than the $3 one at Ikea, even if they look nearly the same. My wife and I got a bevy of kitchen implements for our wedding, and the difference between decent implements and really good implements is incredible.
Up north, we have this crazy little thing called equilibrium. I know you’ve heard of the concept. 
Yes, there are always consumer opportunities, and exploiting them is part of the fun of consumption. But let’s not pretend that there’s a trip to Maui for everyone who is willing to cross the street to buy the cheaper cocktail shaker. The trips to Maui go to the people who don’t buy anything at all.
My wife and I shop for produce about three times a week, more if we are entertaining. We have no car; we are limited to what we can carry or pull around in the granny cart. My wife is a cooking fanatic, so we rarely buy prepared foods and I devour leftovers. Not buying prepared foods or snack foods (a box of Oreos is about $4.50) keeps our budget very manageable, even at WF. Milk and butter are the killers, though.
Look, idiot, I specified a particular scenario. If you want to pretend I said something different, and argue with that rather than with me, that is frankly your problem, not mine. You can sit around and argue with your strawman; I’ll just step out of the way.
My scenario may or may not be relevant to you, but I see plenty of reasonably well-made but still way overpriced stuff that adds little or no utility, and precious little in the way of additional aesthetic appeal, over its everyday analogues. If you want to argue that such situations are vanishingly rare, feel free. But frankly, I don’t really care what you argue, if you’re going to defend the virtue of arguing with what you’d like me to have said, rather than what I actually DID say.
This rant seems pretty weak to me.
Imagine I’m a well-to-do professional who works 12 hours a day for a nice salary. I’d like my home to be pretty, but I’m not a natural decorator. Rather than spending my few free hours combing stores for a collection of stuff that may or may not go together, I take advantage of the design work that’s already been done for me buy the buyers, decorators and graphic artists at Restoration Hardware and Pottery Barn. It costs more than designing my own look, but saves me lots of time and has a predictably tasteful result.
Some people hire interior decorators to get personal attention. Others find catalogs they like and buy collections of things that have been pre-matched. Others have an eye for design and hunt for bargain items that go well together.
We all have different tastes, skills and priorities. So what?
Just picked up a book at the library: Emotional Design by Donald “The Design of Everyday Things” Norman. Jacket blurb says:
“New research has shown that attractive things really do work better.”
I haven’t read it yet, obviously. But it’ll be interesting to see what he says.
I live not too far from “The Main Line” (a pretty fucking expensive neighborhood) and I’ve worked retail from age 14 to 24. I can tell you that if you have two identical cocktail shakers, one called Shaker 2000 and the other Shaker 2000 Platinum and you charge $15 for the regular and $50 for the Platinum, an embarrassingly large number of Main Liners will buy the $50 Platinum, simply because it must be “better” because it costs more. I can’t really blame retailers exploiting that mentality.
Look, it’s not like you can try it in the store, you’re just looking at it. Guess what? When I bought that Platinum one for $50 and it didn’t perform like a $50 piece I’d never shop at that store again. When you see a price, you mentally evaluate what you are trying to get for that price. If you don’t get it, you’re disappointed. That’s how capitalism works.
Why are you being so disagreable, Rufus? I do not recall you being this shrill over such trivialities.
Yes. I do, I have in the past, and they are. Hence your scenario is of dubious relevance. I am surprised that my position was lost on you. From my previous post:
I do not see what is the cause of your confusion. You tell me after the fact that I should “feel free” to make an argument I have already made and accuse me of attacking straw men.
What gives, RT?
Well, I’m only doing as much legwork as the internet allows me, but the Pier One martini shaker? $10.00.
The Williams-Sonoma version? $23. or $32 if you want it monogrammed. The Williams-Sonoma version is made of 18/10 stainless as opposed to 18/8, but that doesn’t seem to be particularly significant in terms of quality. WS does have a $50.00 shaker, but it’s not particularly similar to the one at Pier One.
Incidentally, you can spend 1000’s of dollars for a vintage shaker. I continue to fail to be outraged.
On a related note, the new Williams-Sonoma Halloween catalogue arrived today.
It has, sadly, some highly overpriced pumpin-themed items in it. Such as the “Great Pumpkin Pan” for $29 (looks to be worth about $2) and an embossed turkey platter for $68 (likely $1 cost, made by Southeast Asian slave labourers).
However, they do have pumpkin spice bundt cake mix, and it is Fall, so ROAD TRIP!
OK, well, I guess the OP’s gonna call me a rube. A few years back I bought a homemade, campaign-style dresser at an auction for sixty bucks. Loved the thing, but the drawer pulls bugged me. I looked around a bit, and the only ones I could find that were the style I wanted were at Restoration Hardware. It cost me fity bucks total for the new ones, so so yeah, I’ve paid nearly what the whole piece of furniture cost for some drawer pulls. Am I fifty bucks happier? Dunno, but I am happier.
And don’t get me started on soaps from L’Occitaine. I used to get that stuff in France, where the prices were not wholly unreasonable, but the US shops are ridiculous. Despite being a manly man, I somehow can’t seem to stop myself from picking something up there occasionally, and if I spend a penny, it’ll end up being at least 50 bucks.
Anyway, I’m not forced to shop in any of these places, so that fact that they exist, or that there might be some other rubes paying more than is strictly necessary for their goods, doesn’t bug me that much. And it’s fun to walk through Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn and the rest, even though I almost never buy anything there. Frankly, I’m glad other folks who do throw down the big bucks are subsidizing my sightseeing.
I don’t see how I’m confused at all. You chose to argue with me over a position I had not taken, and then you chose to justify your having done so. Gotta say, I’ve never seen that before, in my six years here.
Now you’re doing so again, in a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone. What gives, you ask? What gives is that I don’t like being held responsible for words I haven’t said. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.
Your justification is that, since the scenario I’ve laid out is exceedingly rare (you’ve less debated this than asserted it), I should be seen as defending the assertion that it’s unwise to spend substantially more money to buy genuine value rather than junk.
I don’t even happen to agree with the assertion you’re attributing to me. So (unsurprisingly) I have no interest in defending it. And I’m completely uninterested in debating any proposition with someone who plays such rhetorical bait-and-switches with other people’s words.
What part of this confuses you?
We rarely use those stores for Presents to people we barely know. They have lots of odd things almost noone buys for themselves. They do make for good oddball gifts for the hard to buy for.
You could also add the “Price of his toys” to yuor list. I am sure there are others.
Just out of curiosity, what would you expect a $50 shaker to do that a $10 one would? I got a $10 shaker - it doesn’t leak and it doesn’t get stuck together or anything. So, beyond the thing malfunctioning, what would tip you off that the shaker wasn’t worth $50?
You have got to be kidding.
Reading your remarks has made me extremely sympathetic to the wingnuts I have seen you attempt to confute. They have my sympathy more for having endured protracted discussion with you than for their wrong beliefs. You’ve shortened their time in Purgatory.
My assertion that these opportunities are exceedingly rare is as good as your assertion that they are frequent enough to have funded your trip to Maui.
If you are interested in debating this point, I’d be happy to. I have no doubt that there is ample empirical literature on pricing; I have little doubt that my view is better supported.
I have never asked you to take the position that it is categorically stupid to spend more money if you receive more value, even if a cheaper and less valuable alternative is available. I never attributed this assertion or any like it to you. I do not attribute it to you know. Nothing I have said thus far has refuted this position. It is totally irrelevant to the present discussion.
A false creation, proceeding from thy heat-oppresed brain.
The scenario under discussion is, in your words:
My emphasis.
That is a lot of magic words. A lot of improbable conditions. When the heavenly bodies are thus aligned, perhaps you will save a few bucks on a spatula. The word “irrelevant” thus springs to mind.
The only position I have taken is that these opportunities are vanishingly few, and that I do not get particularly worked up when people do not choose to take them. I do not waste my ridicule on people who make trivially questionable consumer decisions and perhaps spend a few bucks more than they have to on a cocktail shaker. If they weren’t getting $50 in value from the object, they wouldn’t buy it in the first place. I am thus in no position to criticize.
I prefer to level my ridicule at petty, smug semi-literates who cannot competently maintain a discussion about one extremely straightforward topic at a time.
I am very confused because once I thought you were intelligent and articulate.