break even theory for buying stuff

[Shawn Russell]

"You get what you pay for" is advice I have heard for the last 40 years and is even quoted today. Just how much is this phrase still applicable across all markets?

I have several friends who bought Hyundais. 10 years ago they would have been disappointed but in comparison to my Honda Accord I think they have a better value car, more horse power, more 'luxury' features, more room, and a longer warranty. Several of us have reached 4 years of ownership and my car is the only one that has had service(granted this is a very small sample group and in no way scientific). My warranty period ended almost 16 months ago and many of them still have a year or two left depending on how many miles they drive.

I look at several older phones approaching 4-7 years old that all still work. I have a Dell and IBM laptop that are both 5+ years old that have never needed service. My washer and dryer are over 8 years old and still running well.

I have not taken the time to look up MTFB or calculated my usage on any of my devices but most all are used daily or were used daily when they were my primary device. I am most impressed with my washer and dryer that is used more than once a day with a household that can reach 9. About the only items that die are rechargeable batteries.

I have never seen a Consumer Reports where they follow-up on cars or other electronics 5-10 years down the road. I would dare say 99+% of the reviews are for new items.

Is planned obsolesce still a real entity?

.. And I sure hope this posting does not fall under political..

[Jim Koepke]

"You get what you pay for" is advice I have heard for the last 40 years and is even quoted today. Just how much is this phrase still applicable across all markets?

There are a lot of merchants selling the exact same items at a wide range of prices. Some just want you to think you are getting better by paying more. The marketing people know the old adages and uses the public belief in such to sell us all kinds of things or pay more for the same things.

Just my 2¢ Two Cents.jpg

jtk

[Brian W Smith]

To take,"you get what you pay for"...in a not to unreasonable tangent,payment does not have to be money.Take a sport or any activity.....what you get out of it is usually directly proportional to what you put into it.You can try to "buy" a golf swing,but it more often comes by "paying" your dues with practice and dedication.

So just an opine here but,somewhere along the line,the phrase "may" have lost some of it's original intent?Not that it hurt Madison Ave types,as pointed to by jtk.

[Fred Perreault]

I too believe that "You get what you pay for" applies across many lines. But when purchasing physical assets I would imagine that research and background study would reduce the chance of disappointment later. From cell phones to aftermarket parts for your auto or wood working tools, to real estate, "Caveat Emptor". I have a 12+ year old cell phone that does what I want..... it makes and recieves calls. I favor the earlier products from Caterpillar Tractor and Mack Trucks for their greater simplicity and sturdier construction. The accelerating development of new technologies, and the constant "upgrade" cycle of stuff from golf clubs to software, to autos is as much marketing as anything. There are folks that like to be on the leading edge of new things, and then there are folks that would wait for version 2. I tend to be dinosaur like in my purchasing philosophy hopefully without appearing to be a Luddite. But, I digress............... :-) :-)

[Brian Kent]

My pride of ownership comes from doing the research as far as I can and finding the exact tool / car / appliance / clothing that is the best working / longest lasting / most satisfying / for the lowest possible cost.

[Brian Elfert]

Consumer Reports does rate cars on long term reliability. They do an annual survey that goes back up to 10 years.

[David Weaver]

You get what you pay for if you do the due diligence to make sure you're getting what you think you're getting.

There are definitely issues where brand recognition allows quality to lag, at least compared to other things. Delta comes to mind. WMH comes to mind in a little different way, where the tools seem to be the same as they were 6 or 7 years ago, but some have gone up 60-70% in price. (it's almost comical when they run a 10 or 15% off sale, because they tools are still overpriced relative to what they were years ago).

[Eric DeSilva]

I don't think there is a single dimension to a product's value that can be defined simply by some use characteristic. I--personally--might be inclined to measure the "value" of box end wrench simply by the number of times I've used it and the warranty (can you say "Craftsman"?). But even there, I've had someone make the case that for a professional mechanic, even a box end wrench can have quality variations that make--say--a Snap-On better than a Craftsman for them. Which is sort of the ultimate point--the reason there are lots of products is because people measure "value" in different ways. One person may measure the value of a car simply by whether it gets them from point A to point B; another might measure value in performance and sportiness; another in terms of gas mileage; another in terms of comfort; and yet another might measure value in the number of jealous looks it gets from other drivers. All of you folks with old phones seem to be measuring value in terms of whether your phone still makes and receives voice calls. For phones, I measure quality slightly differently--my phone is an extension of my office, so it needs to be able to do email, integrate with my work IT systems, allow me web access, have high reliability, have high legibility, be easy and intuitive to use... Let's also not forget that money has different subjective value to different people. $1000 might be a lot of money to someone making minimum wage. It is pretty meaningless to Bill Gates.

I was recently reading an article in the local paper about a guy who built an app to allow people to track almost any aspect of their life--including use of "objects." He mentioned that his dad used to put a piece of tape on anything he would buy, and put a tick mark on the tape every time he used it to see how good a value it ultimately was. I thought that was rather interesting.

[Brian Elfert]

I purchased Craftsman mechanic's tools because they are (were) made in the USA and the lifetime warranty. I've never broken a tool other than a ratchet that was bad from the start. Their ratchets aren't as good as some because they don't have enough teeth, but that is the only knock I have against Craftsman. A lot of mechanics will only buy Snap-On or the like because they say that they can break or wear out Craftsman stuff. I will probably never break or wear out my mechanic's tools.

These days I think most mechanic's tools will last nearly forever for a typical homeowner even if purchased at Harbor Freight. I do remember back in the 80s when some Chinese stuff was so bad it wasn't even the size marked on the tool. My father bought a cheap set of nuts and bolts in the 80s and none of the head sizes matched the thread sizes. It wasn't worth the steel it was made from.

[David Weaver]

I had a socket set that was made in taiwan (it was one that dad got at a flea market years ago for $2). Some of the sockets that said they were different sizes were the same size.

The reason I've heard people give for buying snap on tools (i'm sure there are many) is that they claimed that a tougher tool with a better fit has them busting their knuckles less at work. (I buy the craftsman, too). There's so much branded snap on stuff now that you have to be careful when you buy it to make sure that it is truly snap on and not some promotional item with the logo on it.

On another forum, we were having a good time with a set of 4 knives with wrench shaped handles and a snap-on logo on them. i can't remember if they were steak knives or butter knives, but they were $140 for 4 of them, and boldly printed on the back of the package was "MADE IN CHINA". As we were having a good time at the expense of people buying them, a couple of the forum members said "I'd buy them, anyway, just because they say snappy."

[Walt Caza]

"You get what you pay for" is advice I have heard for the last 40 years and is even quoted today.

Ya, that ole chestnut has been circulating forever, with no signs of slowing.
My own personal version goes this way:
you don't always get what you pay for.....
but you never get what you didn't pay for!

interesting chat, thanks for posting
peace
w

ps
unless you are some kinda thief, I suppose?
I hear they make out like bandits!

[Mike Henderson]

Our economic system is based on the idea that people will maximize "what they get" for the minimum amount of money. That encourages designers and manufacturers to, first, find out what people want, and, second, to build better things for less cost. Cars, for example, are much safer than they used to be, and they use less steel in the process. The designers have learned how to build a stronger and safer car over the years. Manufacturers have learned how to build the cars for less money. Better assembly lines, just in time inventory, etc.

While it has it's bad side, it's a pretty good system that has produced significant benefits for all of us.

Mike

[Pat Barry]

My theory, for what its worth, is that, with regard to products made by reputable suppliers (for example, brands like PC, Delta, Makita, Ford, Chevrolet, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Oster, Kitchenaid, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah) the quality is now better than its ever been. Materials, design, technology, etc. The drive is for lower cost to be sure, without sacrificing quality, because sacrificing quality in today's world is just as effective as cutting your own throat at killing your business.

Second half of theory is that you can pay more (for top of the line) and its (generally) just features and creature comforts and prestige you are paying for

[Larry Browning]

My dad had a theory that said you should always try buy somewhere in the middle of the price range. The stuff at the low end was usually poor quality and would end up costing more in the long run due to repairs or replacement. The stuff at the high end usually had features that you won't use anyway and were added just to get the price up. The stuff in the middle usually had the quality without the fluff. That advice was given over 50 years ago and I think it is even more true today than it was then.

[Ryan Mooney]

Good is often not cheap.
Cheap is often not good.

The reverse corollary does not hold true as often as might be desired.

The problem largely lands around determining "value". What adds value to one person is often not the same as what adds value for another person. Some optimize for rareness (or exclusivity), some for longevity, some for convenience, some for various other perceived qualities. The concept of price correlating to many of these attributes is not strictly in most sellers best interest; for instance the price of some fancy handbag and tennis shoes is designed to create an exclusivity attribute more than a value attribute and dropping the price would ruin their market.

This often leads to confusion on the part of consumers who have no basis for comparison of the attributes they believe they desire and so price is often substituted as a proxy (costs more == better) which is often not strictly true, but can be used if you are promoting a craft product. Pricing into a tier will make consumers compare you with other providers in that tier (if you price at walmart prices you will be compared to walmart products, if you price at tiffany's prices you will be compared with them).

The problem comes as a consumer is as Shawn alluded to trying to figure out where the value curves overlap. The underlying problem is that we a) have incomplete knowledge of what constitutes value and b) have different conceptions of value.