this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
278 points (98.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
639 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh yeah, I'm not saying always go for the high end, mid range is often perfectly fine. I'll highlight I'm talking about non-consumable products which you will rely on.
If it's something consumable, the low-mid range often has minimal practical variation due to market forces. If it's not something you're going to rely on, you don't need to care too much if it's gonna break itself or whatever you're using it for.
Excuse the tautology, but anything you're relying on, needs to be reliable. If the low end is reliable enough for that, market forces unfortunately dictate that a worse version must be made for cheaper, because that it-doesn't-need-to-be-reliable demographic is not currently being saturated.
It's kinda away from my original point, but it's also very important—if we can afford it, we should be buying the longest lasting versions of everything we need, we generate an unreasonable amount of waste currently due to the proliferation of planned obsolescence and disposable consumerism. It's not a bargain in the long term if we turn the planet into an oven.
The whole point is that "value for money" is not constant across products or kinds of products. The post is asking to optimize value while minimizing cost. It is a reasonable enough question to have legitimate answers.
I don't think I got my point across clearly then, apologies:
I was answering the question "what products would you be okay cheaping out on?" with basically "out of non-consumables, only things I don't want to rely on if I can afford it". For me "cheaping out" means going for the low-end, cheapest option.
I then tried to explain why, that in a free-market economy, market forces ensure the low end will pretty much always be borderline-useless waste and therefore IMO not worth any amount of money for anyone expecting something reliable. This is not unique to a specific set of products, this applies to everything that has a choice between different models and brands of the same product, because nearly always, the cheaper and worse option is rewarded by increased profit margins and/or sales volume and reduced sales for competitors. This is because humans psychologically love the feeling of getting something for less even if what they're getting is worse, that feeling can short-cut a load of our usual reasoning and manipulate how we spend our money.
Back to my opinion again though: I personally can't think of anything really that I'd want to buy but not want to also be reliable, where the reliable option wasn't prohibitively expensive—so, I can't really give a more specific list of items. Tbh, unless I had an urgent need for something and lacked the funds for something that would last, I think I would most likely wait rather than cheap out.
edit: typo