Two types of shoe buyers

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Poll question: Two types of shoe buyers

You go shopping for shoes at a store in your town. There is a shelf in front of you with 2 very similar LOOKING pairs of shoes.

Pair A is made with inferior materials by 12 year olds in a third world country for close to slave wages. The cost for pair A is $10.00 and they have a life expectancy under normal wearing conditions of one year.

Pair B is made with somewhat better materials by unionized workers in a factory in your actual town. The workers make a decent wage and they spread their earnings around town by buying stuff, buying homes, paying property taxes, etc. In addition, the maker of the shoes, being local, also pays local property taxes, inventory taxes, etc. The cost for pair B is $25.00 and the life expectancy under normal wearing conditions is 2 years.

Imagine that all these factors are spelled right out in a display card in front of each pair of shoes and that everyone who buys the shoes can read.

Poll - Which pair of shoes would you personally purchase?

If you had to guess, which brand do you think would sell the most overall?

[Robb]

1. Well

"Imagine that all these factors are spelled right out in a display card in front of each pair of shoes and that everyone who buys the shoes can read."

...There's your problem(s) right there. :)

[hobbit709]

2. Where do you find these Pair B shoes?

[Kitty Herder]

5. My thoughts exactly. nt

[kath]

27. Yeah, where the hell can you find ANY consumer goods made in the US any more?

VERY rare. And for made-in-US-by-union-labor, very much rarer still. :-(

(I know there are a few websites out there that point the way to made-in-US goods - but the pickings are pretty slim, sadly.)

[shanti]

38. clogs

can't remember the brand, but there is a clog manufacturer in the u.s. still hanging on (barely).

[Donnachaidh]

3. if people REALLY kept track of the wear and tear of the cheap-assed shoes

They'd find out that they spend the same amount on multiple pairs of cheapies OR MORE than they would with the union shoes - because of crappy materials and shoddy workmanship.

[Skidmore]

4. I will be honest.

I buy the one I can afford at the time. If I really need shoes and don't have a lot of discretionary money in the budget, I will buy the cheaper one. Then again, shoes are not a high priority item on my list of things to buy. I tend to wear shoes for 8-10 years though and always buy them on sale. I have yet to pay more than $15 for any pair of shows, including the ones I wore to my own wedding.

[JackintheGreen]

8. Clearly you don't wear your shoes "hard" enough

:)

[Skidmore]

13. I wear my gardening shoes hard and they have to be worn

down significantly for me to get different ones. We wear no shoes in the house anywhere--a custom I brought back from the Middle East. Shoes are not worn in my children's homes either, with the exception of slippers in the wintertime. Outdoor shoes are removed upon arrival in the mud room and remain there until needed again.

Even when I worked outside of the home, my shoes were worn until they were truly in need of replacement and I never buy shoes because they are fashionable. Classic styles only. Some of my thinking on shoes goes back to childhood in an impoverished home when each child got one pair of new shoes at the beginning of the school year if there were no shoes outgrown by the next eldest child for you to wear that year. We never wore shoes in the summer except for going to church. Our feet had great callouses on them.

[JackintheGreen]

15. See my response "Five Years Ago"

immediately below this one, probably.

I get it. I do. But I have never had a $15 pair of shoes last me 8-10 years. I have, however, bought a pair of shoes that averaged out over their lifetime to considerably less than that per year. Not the same thing, I know.

So where do you buy these magical shoes (seriously)? I could do for some $15 dollar shoes that will last me until my daughter graduates from college.

[Blue_In_AK]

32. The "no shoes in the house" is kind of an unspoken rule

in many Alaskan homes, too, especially in the wintertime. A lot of homes have arctic entries where people drop their shoes and coats.

[JackintheGreen]

6. Five years ago

I bought a pair of sandals (Yech!) to wear for fieldwork in India. I paid fifty American dollars for them. I wore them off and on for four years and then (almost) every single day for the last year while in India doing even more fieldwork. I had them rebuilt five times for about Rs.10 (about 20 cents) each time. The first time I had them rebuilt I had to buy a different pair to wear for 2-3 days while the first got repaired. They cost me Rs.450 (maybe $9). They wore out after less than a month (though they were "locally" made in India).

My father wore the same pair of Redwing wellies for motorcycle riding for 17 years. He wore them so long that I bought the exact same pair for riding and have now worn them for nearly eleven.

Always, ALWAYS!, pay the extra for quality because - as with disaster management - many many short term fixes always cost more in the end than a single long term investment.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. Find me a pair of the local, union made shoes for $25.00.

[HughMoran]

19. :facepalm:

:wtf:

[angstlessk]

9. I have fat feet and they are wide on the sides NOT THE HEELS

I bought 'wide width' shoes before and they flopped on my feet. I cannot purchase cheap shoes period! However, I do not know where my shoes (Rockport) are manufactured? If they fit, do not hurt my feet, and have a good quality that lasts...they can be made on mars for all I care. (well all things being equal I WOULD purchase 'made by american union' shoes)

[Kingofalldems]

10. Who picked option A?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. Poor people? n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. Is it the forbidden option? If so, why is it even there? Poll bias maybe?

[Warpy]

11. The actual numbers work out a little differently

The cardboard pair made by slave labor in the third world sells for about thirty bucks and has a life expectancy of about six months if they're worn every day. They can't be repaired to extend their lifespan.

The shoes made of leather or good man made material by union labor sells for about a hundred bucks and has a life expectancy of three years if worn every day. They can often be repaired after that.

Cheap, poor quality goods only work if they're fad items that will be embarrassingly out of style by the time their life expectancy has expired.

Obviously, you're going to do much worse with the thirty dollar pair since you'll need six pairs of them over that three years, or a hundred and eighty bucks to the hundred bucks for the good pair. Buying the cheap shoes is false economy, less cash outlay up front but more cash outlay over time.

These are the terms poor folks who don't have the luxury of shelling out for political correctness or patriotism or even care of their fellow workers have to think in. Unfortunately, only experience will give them this information because the shoe store won't.

BTDT.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. It helps to really KNOW what you are getting -

after several years of buying 'A' because that is what I could afford ($25-30, dead in a year) I bought a pair of 'B', $65 shoes because I wanted shoes that would last longer. When the 'B' shoes died after a year I took them to be re-soled and was told they were 'A' shoes after all - that even though the had good leather uppers, the shoe repair could do nothing with them so they were, in effect, worth half as much as the 'A' shoes I had been getting, lasting no longer but costing twice as much.

And I still can't afford a $120 pair of daily office shoes.

[Warpy]

23. Office shoes are different if you only wear them at work

and commute in something considerably more practical than the stupid shoes offices demand women wear.

You can get away with cheap ones because they don't get the hard use commuting gives them.

The $120 shoes wouldn't wear any better, nor would the $500 designer name shoes. Fashionable women's shoes are garbage, period.

I always said I went into nursing so I could wear comfortable shoes on the job. That's partially true.

Even budget priced men's office shoes can be reheeled and often resoled.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. What i call my 'office shoes' are the (men's) standard black shoes

I wear most the year (I can get away with sandals in the summer) at the office, and as part of my 'uniform' for my p/t job at a movie theater - other than that, I usually am barefoot, in sandals or very occasionally tennis shoes. But they are my 'dress' shoes. And they can't be reheeled or resoled.

Unfortunately, my feet have grown over the years and I can't wear my military issue shoes which I still have that I wore for 15 years before I outgrew them. Only had to re-sole them once in that time.

[shimmergal]

35. I've NEVER paid $100 for a pair of shoes!

Came close a few years ago, buying a pair of sandals for about $89 because that make was reputed to help people with back problems. It did help a little, and I still have them, but the difference between them and my normal $30-$40 Aerosoles wasn't significant. 'Course I'm lucky to live in a climate where open shoes can be worn year-round.

[OwnedByFerrets]

12. From what I have found, the B shoes are usually over $100

and until our trade policies are changed, and our wages reflect the higher wages which that brings, I will be forced to purchasing the $12 ones that last for a yr.

Now, which ones would I "prefer" to buy? Do you really need a poll for that?

[Romulox]

14. I would buy the non-union shoes, then use a "Union Yes" avatar to make me feel better

about myself. I'd also explain when I say "Union Yes!" I mean my union, not necessarily your union.

I would be prepared to make a lot of excuses, if pushed, however.

[Edweird]

29. lol

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

16. For the extremely literal - the figures used are just example prices.

Pair B costs significantly more than Pair A in the short term, but not so much in the long term plus carries with them a lot of unseen collateral benefits.

I was trying to hint at tangible and intangible values in this post. It is to everyone's COLLECTIVE benefit in the long term to purchase the more expensive shoes. I am not at all surprised that DUers are all buying the more expensive shoes, but I wonder how many in the general public would?

I think until we evolve as a society to the point where MOST would buy pair B we are fighting uphill battles for any concept that involves an element of altruism. It's about educating people out of the whole I Got Mine, screw you attitude that we see in the healthcare debates.

[pipi_k]

17. There are issues beyond the obvious, too...

one of them being that the cheaper shoes aren't going to provide the necessary support that feet need.

When I was a child, my mom bought us cheapie sneakers and stuff. I carried on the tradition when I got older. Because, you know, when you have limited income and need shoes you don't sit there and decide that spending $25 or $50 or more on a good pair of shoes is justified when there's no food in the house.

So I'm now paying the price with painful foot and knee problems.

Anyone who's ever had plantar fasciitis knows it's torture. Complete and utter torture. Someone once described it as being like walking on raw and bloody stumps.

Anyway, I don't generally get my shoes in a shoe store for full price. I get good shoes for way cheap off of eBay. New, even!! Mr Pip got me a good pair of sneakers from a specialty catalog (very wide feet).

I hate wearing shoes anyhow, and during the day around the house I wear Crocs with arch supports in them. I'd rather just go shoeless altogether, but that's not possible.

[Twinguard]

18. I used to work at a boot factory/store.

The boots we made were made from the best possible materials that were made in the USA. The boots were made entirely of leather (except of course for the hooks/eyelets, steel or reinforced toes, soles, and the nails and thread used in the construction) and made entirely by hand by some of the finest bootmakers imaginable. As far as I'm concerned, they are the best thing you can put on your feet. The factory workers were not unionized, but the management treated the workers quite well.

The most common boot we sold was a serious work boot used by everyone from wildland fire fighters to construction workers to railroad workers. This model sold for around $400. The people that were hardest on these boots could get years of wear out of them before they needed to have them resoled or rebuilt. Their coworkers who opted for the less expensive boots were able to get maybe a year from their boots with no option of resoling or rebuilding. It took me no time to see the value of buying the quality boots. Those that spent the extra money up front for the handmade boots ended up spending far less money in the long run.

I remember one chap that brought in a pair of boots that was thirty-some years old (I checked the records!!) and the boots were still structurally fine, but had been worn alot and they looked their age. He bought a new pair of the same model, not because his boots needed replacing, but because he was tired of looking at those old things.

My first pair is going on ten years, and I'm just now thinking of having the heel caps replaced. Of course, I don't work in a rail yard or fight forest fires...

Personally, I am a believer in buying quality. I'm not alone... at $400+ per pair, we sold so many boots that it was common to see a 8 week wait or longer. At the slowest time of the year, boots would take two weeks or less.

To answer your question, I would guess that the $10 shoes sold more for a couple of reasons...
1) they are less expensive, and
2) they need to be replaced more often

[Edweird]

28. You wouldn't happen to be talking about Wesco, would you?

[Twinguard]

39. Nope.

White's Boots in Spokane, WA.

[Mz Pip]

22. B must be on sale.

I really do try to buy goods made in the US but it's hard to find them sometimes. THE US used to manufacture all kinds of things, but those days are long gone. I read labels and more often than not they say MADE IN CHINA.

[treestar]

26. If everyone would only buy B

But it simply is not human nature and does not work. Otherwise none of this would have happened.

People will buy A, period. We have to learn to make the best of that.

We have to find something to offer the world. Our attitude in the US seems to be of entitlement. Like others should just keep their societies primitive because that'll keep us the richest nation on earth. Not going to happen.

[pipi_k]

30. OK, thinking about the moral dilemma now...

RE: "Pair A" shoes being made by 12 year olds for slave wages in a third world country

What if that kid's income is the only income the family has?

What if the kid's parents are dead from AIDS or something and he has to support his brothers and sisters?

What if it's a girl who either has to work in a factory or prostitute herself?



What happens to these kids if we don't buy what they're making? Do they go back to their villages and do something even worse than working in a factory?


I can't help wondering how do we do the "right thing" without actually making things worse for the people we're trying to protect...


:(

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

31. Do you know I actually thought about that when I writing my OP

I was going to throw in something like AND the CEO of the union factory donates x% of sales to some international charity for displaced shoe factory slave wage employees, but I thought that would really be over the top.

Since the whole scenario is imaginary anyway:

How about if, with all the money the shoe union makes, they work towards international unionizing to make permanent change for the better in the slave wage shoe factory? And all the decently earning employees remember to give to charities to improve the quality of life worldwide? Would that help?

[dysfunctional press]

33. i wear size 16 shoes, so the question is moot...

a. stores don't carry my size.
b. nobody sells them for $10 or even $25 per pair.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Like most shoppers, it would depend on whether I had $10 or $25 to spend on shoes.

[flvegan]

36. I'd take my $25 and buy 2 1/2 pairs of Pair A. I'd get

two years of wearing out of the first two pairs, and I'd have one shoe to wear for 6 months. I'd just have to hop everywhere. See? Brilliant.

Nah, I'm kidding. I'd buy Pair B, but I do understand that in a money crunch not everyone has that option. Reality is that Pair A costs $35 and Pair B costs $90. That's a big difference.

I also think that overall, Pair A sells the most. Let's face it, MOST people don't care where their stuff is made or under what conditions their stuff is made. It's all about the cost to them, personally.

[Pharlo]

37. Well, if I actually intend wearing them, I'd try both pairs on and

purchase the more comfortable pair. I don't buy shoes a lot, but when I do, COMFORT is the most important factor. If the shoes hurt my feet, it doesn't matter whether they cost $ 10.00, $ 25.00, or $ 500.00. I'm NOT wearing them, so they'll last forever - in a closet.

When I'm working, I spend all day on my feet on cement in a manufacturing environment. So, it's my livelihood at stake. I don't care where they were made or whether one pair costs ten or fifteen dollars more than the other. And, when you're talking comfort, quality of the materials is a pre-requisite. Cheap materials is pretty much synonymous with uncomfortable shoes. I am more than willing to buy my clothes at Goodwill or St Vincent's, but shoes - always new, always comfortable.

I use the 'comfort' factor to gauge any footwear purchase, not just workboots, because once your feet start hurting, they don't know the difference between pairs of shoes, they just hurt - all the time.