#vimes 'boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness

[chaoticoctopi]

It's so much easier to make money if you already have money.

My bank sent around a message about a gaurenteed return bond thing. You can put money in for 8 or 15 months. You get a gaurenteed 5% return.

(Except it's not actually 5%, it's either 4.88% for the 8 month and 4.16 for the 15 month, and the number of days in the months matter somehow? IDK. Whatever.)

Anyway, all you need is a minimum of $500. "I can do that!" I think. "I got my tax returns, i have money I've been squirreling away in savings, I could switch some of that low-interest savings money to this for a while!"

And then I think about the math, and I look at the handy supplied chart of returns.

The lowest figure on the chart they give as an example is *$10,000*. At that sum, in 8 months you will earn... $330.

Yes, it's "free money" but it's still somehow so underwhelming. 10k is such a huge chunk of change to me, and while an extra $330 in any given month would be be huge difference, over 8 months?

So, like, if I was to take the entirety of my savings I've painstakingly put away over the course of *eight years*, and tied it up in this account for eight whole months - meaning it would not be available for me to draw from if I had a sudden emergency, which is THE POINT of savings for me - I'd get a whole whopping $165??

That seemingly "reasonable minimum" of $500 would earn you $16.50

Now, if I could put away 100k, which the chart so helpfully shows, I could earn $3,300. That's getting to the point where it seems worth it. But to earn that, I have to have 100k just sitting around that I *won't need for at least eight months*.

Of course they don't put the $500 minimum or even $1000 on the chart. Who'd be excited to see a return of $16.50 or $33 listed?

But if I have huge stacks of cash laying around already, that cash could make me a reasonable amount *by just sitting there*

The trick is you have to not NEED the huge stack of money in the first place.

[rosewind2007]

Okay! Everyone! This fic is so much fun!

And it’s clever and just SO GOOD!!!

Includes reference to the Vimes Boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness (because Gurathin and Vimes are both my dearly dearly beloveds)

So if you like Murderbot and you like Vimes and you like Gurathin: read it! Tag author: the amazing @opalescent-potato

[u2fangirlie-blog]

Truth! From Men at Arms by Sir Terry Pratchett.

happy glorious 25th of may

[stackofsnakes]

I find it funny that Sam Vimes, Samuel "Sam Vimes' Boot Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness" Vimes, goes out of his way to get the cheapest and most worn boots imaginable, for the explicit purpose of navigating Ankh-Morpork like Toph from fucking Avatar.

My man's going to catch pneumonia one day but at least he can two-factor-authenticate his wherabouts

[blackboard-monitor]

“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.”

[gallusrostromegalus]

Ok so this is a weird question but you have an interesting collage of knowledge: do you know where to get all leather work boots (all leather meaning there are no fabric patches) for women that won’t break my bank account but also won’t fall apart in six months?? Because I am STRUGGLING

I’m going into a welding program and this is one of the requirements and I’ve been looking for three weeks with no luck. I’m a college student so I can’t really afford to drop an insane amount of money on a pair of boots. It’s literally the Sam Vimes boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

I am always a little sus of wedding dress requirements, especially ones that force you to spend a lot of money- NEVERMIND YOU SAID WELDING NOT WEDDING LMAO

UHH i dont know that much about welding actually? Do the SOLES also need to be leather?

@systlin will know more boot places than I go but if rubber soles and SOME but not obtrusively not-leather parts are OK we've both had great experiences with bates boots. I'll open this to the floor b/c I know at least a few of y'all do welding and will have reccomendations.

Definitely this is a vimes boots problem but this is very much the correct time to really invest in The Good Shit if you need encouragement.

[twingus-bingus]

The Disc world novels are fantastic.

[i-am-worm]

Inktober 2024 - Day 3 - Boots

"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

[betterbemeta]

I have said it before and i don't care how many youtubers advertise hello fresh or hungryroot to make a living

meal subscription services are not worth it.

Not a single one of them is actually cheaper in the long term than planning and buying your own groceries.

many of them have initial discounts to sell you the service and then hope you are just too busy or too tired to unsubscribe. almost ALL people who sign up for a meal plan will unsubscribe within the first year because they were only there to access those early discounts BECAUSE THEY NEEDED CHEAPER FOOD IMMEDIATELY.

Your normal grocery store probably does have a few dark patterns but not nearly as many as even the 'nicest' meal subscription service.

There are articles out there like "I did the math and the groceries and meal services are the same price mostly!" but if you pay attention, there are massive holes in their thinking:

the meals or plans that track closest to grocery store prices are ones that adhere to special diets. Eating vegan, keto, etc. can be more pricey to shop for. This is a known part of the strategy for meal kits and delivery services-- they can't compete with the price of typical groceries, but just like some people will shop at an expensive Health Food store, others will be willing to pay a premium for luxury or diet-specific products. And chances are if you're a regular person keeping a special diet with a limited amount of disposable income you probably have already made compromises for your budget and don't need a for-profit service to pry away that money you're trying to save.

These articles frame, 'you don't have to buy oil, seasonings, vinegar, or staple ingredients' as a cost saving or even food waste saving measure... but that's also true if you just eat regular TV dinners from the grocery store freezer aisle, many of which offer the same or better prices per serving. But really, is this not just a grocery shopping version of 'Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness'? Exploitation of those who can't invest in the cost of things upfront results in poor people spending more money for worse outcomes?

If I can't make a restaurant's exact same fish sandwich for the same price, I can just make a chicken sandwich or a grilled portobello. Or buy a box of frozen dumplings. Saving money on Grilled Trout Over Wild Rice shipped to my door makes no sense when I simply wouldn't choose to cook something like that without a special reason.

if these meal kits and delivery plan services really WERE cheaper than groceries, grocery stores would be losing money to them and they're mostly losing money to people buying less food in general.

[syl-stormblessed]

I JUST GOT TO THE CAPTAIN SAMUEL VIMES "BOOTS" THEORY OF SOCIOECONOMIC UNFAIRNESS. THAT FELT LIKE A RIGHT OF PASSAGE.

[theygotlost]

the. watch. episode. four.

the watch are ambushed by goblins in drag, aka "drag goblins", which are apparently "the worst kind".

jocasta wiggs, the female assassin from the opening scene of night watch, is a pertinent character and a cunty old woman. theyre literally just scavenging the discworld series for names to use for their original characters. she was in love with some woman named perpetua. in their youth jocasta and perpetua had a mystical talking sword called gawain, or wayne for short (voiced by matt berry from wwdits) whose voice you can only hear if you are "a lover". their lesbian love was so strong than all the other characters can hear wayne's voice by proxy.

vimes explains his boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness to sybil and she callously mocks him for it. later she chugs an entire bottle of bearhuggers in front of him to.... idk emasculate him or something

buggy swires (the gnome) is a tall elderly human man in a nursing home.

death asks carrot to go out for a drink with him and then gets shy.

a fight in the nursing home causes a "displacement spell" to activate, lowering a disco ball from the ceiling and forcing vimes and carcer, as well as sybil and girlboss wonse, to engage in an involuntary homoerotic ballroom dance to "wake me up before you go-go". this was so genuinely so bad that it was good. im kind of obsessed.

[no1canbreakyou]

Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness. Agree / disagree?

    "I haven't read Men At Arms yet, but I'm getting to it. Still, I know of the theory, by Terry Pratchett. I agree. Things built to last are more expensive and thus unaffordable for the poor, but if you want something affordable, you have to accept it will break down quickly... Except I think this rule is changing. Most things aren't built to last anymore, and the difference being the rich are able to afford the constant replacements, whereas the poor can't." He's so much more talkative right now. It might be the whisky. Shadow rubs his head, ordering a water and another sundae. "And when they do manage to save up enough to replace something or improve their lives, they're accused of buying frivolously... as if owning fifteen different sports cars isn't frivolous."

[stevensaus]

Whether AI Can Write A Story Is The Wrong Question.

There is a qualitative difference in the output between a writer who knows story structure and a writer who understands how story structure works. I am certain that current AI technology can do the former. I am very skeptical of the latter. But that really isn't the right question -- or questions -- to ask. The first relevant question is: "Will people pay more for the difference?" The second relevant question is: "Who will profit?" The first question is one we've faced before. This is the same question that we've wrestled with the displacement of craftsmanship by mechanization, industrialization, and mass production. Compare a chest of drawers that is made from actual wood with one which was made from particleboard. The first has hand-wrought dovetailed joins where they are simply staple-gunned in the latter. The first has been hand-polished, the second is essentially covered in varnished contact paper with a wood grain print. And the first is horrendously expensive and difficult to come by, compared to the second. I know the "The Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness;" wait for it. Mechanization and automation are great at repetitive tasks. There's no arguing that, say, modern farming methods (for all of its flaws, which are many) dramatically reduced worldwide famine rates after the transformation of agriculture in the 1960's. But there, too, there is a qualitative difference. "Not dying of famine" is hugely different from "well-nourished," or "sustainably nourished," or "healthily nourished," or any of a host of other criteria. There is a market for hand-made things (and hand-grown or hand-prepared food), because of the qualitative difference I mentioned before... although it is a pricey one. Theoretically, this would be taken care of by the free market, right? People won't choose lower-quality goods (or entertainment) if there is a better alternative. There is, after all, a reason why "dollar store" is used as a pejorative adjective. That brings us to the second question. All this automation -- including computers and software -- represents an increase in productivity. So why are we still working as hard -- or as much -- as people ten, twenty, forty, sixty and more years ago? The answer is pretty simple. The benefits of productivity increases were not -- and are not -- accessible to the population at large. Those benefits have been hoarded by executives and shareholders. For example, how a certain box store has reduced its workforce expenses by nearly eliminating everything except for self-checkout lanes and utilizing brutal employee sick policies. While customers are complaining. Perhaps you'd think that greater efficiency and lower costs would allow the company to lower its prices. Except that box store is also beating quarterly expectations for revenue and earnings, despite current inflation and lower sales. It's not just that box store, though. According to the Economic Policy Institute, workers haven't gained anything from the growth in productivity pretty much for my entire lifetime. That's the disconnect. In a functional free-market society, this would all balance out, at least in theory. {1} The benefits of that increased productivity would be passed on to the rest of society in one way or another. Instead, those benefits are being hoarded by an investor class {2}, which means that the hand-made goods -- the quality goods -- are even further out of reach for everyone else. And now we are seeing it be applied to story and art as well. Like it or not, art and entertainment cost. They cost money, which a lot of us are feeling pretty tightly right now (while the aforementioned investor class is doing just fine). But there's a second cost: The cost in free time. Currently just one streaming service would have to run constantly for four years to view it all. Oh, yes, a huge chunk of it -- and many other streaming services -- consist of formulaic and poor-quality offerings. {3} This applies to other forms of entertainment as well, where available quantity is the primary selling point (eBooks, audiobooks, artwork, you name it). But if that's what you are able to afford financially, and you're strapped for time because despite all this technological improvement you're still working forty hours a week plus commuting time, well, you get what you can. This is what happened with the last writer's strike and the rise of reality television. Reality television was (and is) comparatively inexpensive to make, and, because of how distribution of media works, brought in equivalent ratings -- and therefore, equivalent advertising dollars. Now, reality TV has become as much of a staple as the self-checkout station... and in the same way, only the investor class is better off for it. For corporations and investors, it is -- practically by definition -- only the profit margin that matters. The particulars about what is created and how literally Do Not Matter. {4} Given all this, it is no accident that the current writer's strike is deeply concerned about AI. It isn't difficult to imagine these same investors -- the ones who control enough resources to get books in bookstores, to get films distributed to theaters and to major streaming services, to get a series greenlit -- will be far more interested in turning out formulaic hack plots. You can already see a similar effect in brick-and-mortar chain bookstores, particularly in the sci-fi and fantasy sections, where it's become increasingly difficult to find anything but the "safest" titles, usually with "now a major motion picture" or "now a streaming series" splashed across the cover. There is a simple answer to these issues: to distribute the benefits of our society's increased productivity through mechanization, automation, algorithms, machine learning, and AI to society at large both in terms of financial and time resources. Where our tools augment our abilities individually and as a species, for the betterment of both the individual and society at large. Instead, we have a society where it is not enough to make a profit -- you must maximize that profit. Instead, we have a world where half of the wealth is held by 1.1% of the population, and 55% of all humans hold only 1.3% of global wealth. Regardless of the outcome of the writer's strike, or outrage over publishers using AI art for book covers, the voracious drive of the investor class to increase profits will almost certainly lead to a race to the bottom that favors the "cheapest" methods to create art and music and publishing and media as our ability -- both financially and in terms of time -- is squeezed tighter and tighter. At least, that's how I'm afraid it will go as long as all the rest of us are bullied into submission. Good luck. {1} A free-market society also allows for the free movement of labor, which... well, look at the discussion we're having about the US-Mexico border, and you can see that is not what's happening there. {2} Yes, I know. At least I'm not calling them the "bourgeoisie," although that's mostly because I need spellcheck to get that word right. {3} Look, I'm not knocking your taste here. I've enjoyed some reality television and other forms of "light entertainment" -- like Taskmaster and Dimension 20 -- myself. At the same time, that isn't all I want to have available. {4} Fun related fact: Subway, the largest fast-food chain in the US, was founded by a physicist who had never seen a "sub" sandwich and a family friend. Check out The Food That Built America episode! Featured Image by 0fjd125gk87 from Pixabay Read the full article

[addicted2coke-theothercoke]

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

“[I]t is actually more expensive to be poor than not poor. If you can’t afford the first month’s rent and security deposit you need in order to rent an apartment, you may get stuck in an overpriced residential motel. If you don’t have a kitchen or even a refrigerator and microwave, you will find yourself falling back on convenience store food, which — in addition to its nutritional deficits — is also alarmingly overpriced. If you need a loan, as most poor people eventually do, you will end up paying an interest rate many times more than what a more affluent borrower would be charged. To be poor — especially with children to support and care for — is a perpetual high-wire act.”

— It Is Expensive to Be Poor | The Atlantic

[theygotlost]

the vimes boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness could not have more obviously been a reference to marx. idiot

[havnblog]

My shoes broke, so I did something radical

… but it shouldn’t be!

Sometimes, the best units of clothing are those you’ve had for a while. It’s been worn in, and seems to have moulded to your body. However, that makes it even sadder when it gets a hole or something — and I assume many of you have kept using an item way longer than you should. It’s just so damn comfortable, so you don’t care that your nipple is poking out of your sweatshirt, The People Eater style.

Recently, I had this happen to a pair of shoes — and that’s when I did something that shouldn’t be as radical as it is.

Blown out heel, tired leather, and worn down sole.

The regular thing would either be to buy a new pair, or just keep wearing them until things got even worse.

But instead, I got them repaired. 😲

Most shoes aren’t made to be repaired, though

Imagine you’ve bought a new car: And after a while, you have to buy some new tires, as they, obviously, wear out quicker than the car itself. But then the people at the tire shop say: “Sorry, you can’t change the tires on this car — so you have to buy a whole car.” This is how most shoes work today. Soles wear out way quicker than uppers, but most shoes today are constructed in a way that they’re impossible to repair. This is usually because everything is (only) glued in place, instead of also being based on stitches.

However, if you look at the underside of my worn out sole, you can see that these are stitched together.

However, be aware: Sometimes glue will do all the work, and brands just add some stitches to make the shoes appear repairable.

Constructions you can look for, are Goodyear welted, Blake stitch and Stitchdown construction — but there are more.

Image from White's: A brand that makes ultra-high quality boots, often with hand-sewn stitchdown construction, in the US.

Both me and my wife have (highly recommended!) sneakers from Crown Northampton. I'm not sure what this construction is called — but they are repairable.

However, it’s not cheap, sadly

I wish I could say that buying repairable shoes, and getting them repaired instead of buying all-new shoes, saves you money — but it often doesn’t. The repair cost me US$80 — which is more than many shoes.

The shoes themselves are usually more expensive as well, as making them repairable makes them take longer to make, and often require more expensive components. Furthermore, only brands that are slightly more high-end, even bother.

And when you get them repaired, you have to pay for the labour — and this labour usually happens somewhere with higher labour costs than in a south-east asian sweatshop…

However, depending on which shoes you compare, there is some truth to the Sam Vimes “Boots” theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

There are still (at least) these benefits:

It’s obviously more environmentally friendly, as your old shoes don’t end in a land-fill, and a whole new pair isn’t being made.

You’ll also probably end up supporting local businesses, and/or shoemakers with better working conditions than the norm.

Shoes where you can keep your upper for years and years, making it more and more comfortable, and with good quality soles (not made with foam that wears out in a couple of months), will give you very comfortable shoes.

The shoes you’ll end up using, will generally be of great quality, both in terms of looks and function.

And lastly: This might be a bit esoteric, but when you have to save up to buy shoes, and you know you’ll have them for a long time, you’ll think thoroughly about every purchase. And when you know they’re expensive, you’ll want to take care of them (including repairs). Simply put, the Own fewer, better things mentality, makes you love your stuff more!

But how did my shoes end up?

I sadly didn’t take a photo of the entire shoe before sending them in — but compare how they look now (I’ve worn them a bit after the repair), to the images I posted above:

As you can see, they don't look brand new — but they still look great, in my opinion. Another neat thing, is that I could choose to get a different type of sole, to vary the look a bit.

They also added a brand-new part of the insole!

These are my Alden Indy Boots. The upper is amazing (both for my wide feet, and in terms of looks), but the soles they come with are pretty slippery. So when they need re-soling, I intend to get a more rugged sole. Another benefit of re-sole-able shoes!

Some brands to check out, if you want good, repairable shoes

Lastly, I just want to fire off a few recommendations, if you want shoes that can be repaired. This is absolutely not a complete list — and they are not all amazing. There are many resources out there — among them, r/goodyearwelt and Stridewise.

In general, go for shoes made with natural materials (both in the upper and the sole), and ones that are constructed for repairability. The trap is that shoes that are super-comfortable brand-new will often become less comfortable with wear, and in general wear quickly. While some shoes from these brands, aren’t as comfortable when brand new, but they will only get better with age. Makes it a harder sell, but a better buy.

See if you can find a local shoe store that carries good quality shoes. It might not be the biggest chain-stores. Also consider buying online. It’s far from optimal — but it might be the only way to find good purchases. Contact them beforehand, and discuss sizing, and expect that you might have to send them back.

These are in random order, and are just some that I thought of at the moment. Please comment with other suggestions, and I’ll update the list!

Some images, from Oak Street Bootmakers and Crown Northampton, showing some of what to expect.

Rancourt & Co: The shoes I got repaired, are Ranger-Mocs from this brand. Made in Maine, U.S.A., and great quality. I’d recommend signing up for their newsletter because occasionally, they run “crowdfunding batches” of shoes. So if you can wait a couple of months, you get them at a great price. The brand also offers wide sizes, which is important to me. Their Read Boat Shoes are a great alternative to the lower quality Sebagos.

Oak Street Bootmakers: Similar brand to Rancourt.

Crown Northampton: Amazing minimalistic sneakers, and a few more models. About the same price as Common Projects, but higher quality. Made in England.

Koio: Sneakers at around the quality of Common Projects, but cheaper.

Thursday Boots: Makes both boots and sneakers. Not as high quality as others on this list — but as the price also reflects this fairly, I don’t mind at all.

Red Wing: A staple in American boots. The Iron Rangers are a classic.

Grant Stone: A brand that single-handedly proofs that “Made in China” doesn’t mean low quality. Amazing footwear for a very fair price.

White’s: Top-notch rugged boots.

Nicks: See: White’s

Alden: I love my Indy boots — but to be honest, this brand is a bit over-priced. Doesn’t change the fact that they make great shoes.

Loake: British, mostly dress shoes, at a good price.

Paraboot: A French brand with several legendary models.

Heschung: Paraboot’s sister brand, also making great quality footwear with iconic designs.

Skomaker Dagestad: The best shoe store in Oslo, Norway, which also makes their own shoes in Portugal.

Carmina: Really nice Spanish shoes — mostly on the dressier side.

Meermin: Carmina’s lower-cost sister brand.

Beckett Simonon: They take orders in bulk — so if you’re willing to wait, you’ll get good shoes for a good price.