When "Better" is actually worse

[RavenSky]

There is bottled water which many seems to think they have to have with them at all times now.

I *do* feel the need to have a bottle of water with me at all times. But I'm sensible enough just to fill a half liter bottle at home before I leave the house.

If I am buying bottled water because I'm genuinely thirsty and it's my only option, I just buy a litre bottle of the cheapest non-brand stuff they have for about 50c vs. €1.50 for a half liter of some brand like Ballygowan. It's all the same stuff. It's just fucking water.

^^^ all of that

Yet I know people who insist that the branded bottled waters are far superior to the non-branded waters or to the stuff that's piped into their house.

Like maybe the people in Flint

 

[bilby]

I can get perfectly drinkable water out of a tap here, on the driest continent on earth. It costs $3.69 for 1,000 litres - that's equivalent to $0.0018 a bottle. Why the fuck would I pay $2.00 for a bottle of something I can get delivered to my home for $0.0018?

Until a few years ago, it was closer to $0.50 for 1,000 litres, but the state government built some infrastructure - a pipeline and pumping station network linking the major regional catchments, plus a desalination plant on the coast - which has pushed the price up considerably in recent years. Some argue that this was unnecessary, but it seems to me to be a prudent thing to do in a drought prone area, and at less than two-fifths of a cent per litre retail, does not seem like an excessively expensive thing to have done.

What makes me laugh is that most of the people who are complaining that the desalination plant was a waste of money are quite happy to pay $2 for half a litre of Mount Franklin.

 

[Artemus]

The traditional status markers are clothing and accessories. They signal that you can afford the flimsy, the purely decorative and items of extremely limited utility; that you can afford to ignore utility and durability.

Or the exact opposite. Status markers are of extreme quality and durability. That Rolex will last longer than the plastic watch from China. That Bentley will outlast the Ford Fiesta. Your leather riding boots will outlast the fake leather boots from China.

Bentleys are actually extremely unreliable and mechanical Swiss watches only keep running with periodic service that alone costs 5 to 10 times that of a new Seiko or Citizen that, based on my experience, can run a long, long time without doing anything at all. This Forbes article uses both as examples that meet the criteria of this thread:

Ideally is should be the case that cheap things require more repair while expensive things last longer. That isn’t always the case, unfortunately (as buyers of exotic cars will frequent lament to you), and it is very true in the sphere of timepieces.

I actually have an Omega watch that my mother gave my father in 1964 (back when a Swiss watch really was better than everything else). The local dealer told me to expect to pay at least $1000 to get it running like new again. I don't think so.... (I think I'll start calling it "Fredo" since I can't get rid of it while my mother
is still alive.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or the exact opposite. Status markers are of extreme quality and durability. That Rolex will last longer than the plastic watch from China. That Bentley will outlast the Ford Fiesta. Your leather riding boots will outlast the fake leather boots from China.

Bentleys are actually extremely unreliable and mechanical Swiss watches only keep running with periodic service that alone costs 5 to 10 times that of a new Seiko or Citizen that, based on my experience, can run a long, long time without doing anything at all. This Forbes article uses both as examples that meet the criteria of this thread:

Second this. My wife has a fairly nice watch that dates from her time in school--and she doesn't use it because of the cost of the periodic service.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bentleys are actually extremely unreliable and mechanical Swiss watches only keep running with periodic service that alone costs 5 to 10 times that of a new Seiko or Citizen that, based on my experience, can run a long, long time without doing anything at all. This Forbes article uses both as examples that meet the criteria of this thread:

Second this. My wife has a fairly nice watch that dates from her time in school--and she doesn't use it because of the cost of the periodic service.

Bingo!

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
I worked with a guy in the 1990s that never payed more than two dollars for a watch. He picked them up from racks in discount stores. He would wear them for a couple years until the battery died then throw it away and buy another one because it was cheaper than replacing the battery.

 

[credoconsolans]

Bentleys are actually extremely unreliable and mechanical Swiss watches only keep running with periodic service that alone costs 5 to 10 times that of a new Seiko or Citizen that, based on my experience, can run a long, long time without doing anything at all. This Forbes article uses both as examples that meet the criteria of this thread:

Second this. My wife has a fairly nice watch that dates from her time in school--and she doesn't use it because of the cost of the periodic service.

You guys much not buy as cheap a watch as I do. I spent $9 on a watch at the drug store. It lasted 3 months. I put a new battery in. Then it lasted 3 weeks. And died. ANY Rolex will beat that kind of garbage. Of course a Rolex needs adjusting. So do Steinways.

As for Bentleys, the article was less than helpful about how many years it was using as comparison and from the same above referenced article:

"The firm hit back at the survey, saying it was “not an accurate reflection of the Bentley ownership experience, as it covers less than four per cent of the Bentley vehicles of comparable age on the road in the UK”.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Second this. My wife has a fairly nice watch that dates from her time in school--and she doesn't use it because of the cost of the periodic service.

You guys much not buy as cheap a watch as I do. I spent $9 on a watch at the drug store. It lasted 3 months. I put a new battery in. Then it lasted 3 weeks. And died. ANY Rolex will beat that kind of garbage. Of course a Rolex needs adjusting. So do Steinways.

As for Bentleys, the article was less than helpful about how many years it was using as comparison and from the same above referenced article:

"The firm hit back at the survey, saying it was “not an accurate reflection of the Bentley ownership experience, as it covers less than four per cent of the Bentley vehicles of comparable age on the road in the UK”.

IIRC I'm paying about $15 for mine--and get 10 years or so. By the time the battery has had it the watch doesn't look it's best and I replace the whole thing. My lifetime watch cost is less than one service on her nice one.

 

[Artemus]

Second this. My wife has a fairly nice watch that dates from her time in school--and she doesn't use it because of the cost of the periodic service.

You guys much not buy as cheap a watch as I do. I spent $9 on a watch at the drug store. It lasted 3 months. I put a new battery in. Then it lasted 3 weeks. And died. ANY Rolex will beat that kind of garbage. Of course a Rolex needs adjusting. So do Steinways.

As for Bentleys, the article was less than helpful about how many years it was using as comparison and from the same above referenced article:

"The firm hit back at the survey, saying it was “not an accurate reflection of the Bentley ownership experience, as it covers less than four per cent of the Bentley vehicles of comparable age on the road in the UK”.

Of course Bentley tried to discredit the survey...they are trying to sell cars. Google "Bentley reliability" and you will see that the terrible reliability is universally recognized. Now, when you compare a Rolex to a $9 drug store watch, a Bentley to a Yugo, or designer-brand riding boots to fake leather knock-offs, of course the more expensive product will be better. But the point of the thread is not that it is never possible to get a better product by spending more, it is that beyond some point people spend ludicrous amounts to get worse performance. Try comparing a Bentley to a Toyota Avalon (or even to a Toyota Camry) and the Toyotas come out ahead as automobiles. Or compare a Rolex to a Seiko or Citizen...the $100 watches are far less expensive, far more accurate, more reliable, and look the same as the luxury Swiss watches without any adjustment or other maintenance whatsoever (not even changing batteries). So by any rational definition, which is the better product?

 

[Valjean]

A Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic will get me from place to place more reliably and cheaply than a Mercedes, and just as comfortably IMHO. Their frequency-of-repair stats are better and parts are a fraction the price of the German car's.
Five and ten year Total Cost of Ownership -- not even close.

 

[braces_for_impact]

You guys ain't seen nothin' until you've checked out goop.com. This is Gwyneth Paltrow's site. This site has all of your incredibly over priced, pretentious, pseudo-scientific and woo woo needs. All the lovely things for which the people in Beverly Hills will gladly pay a premium. You can use your sun sign to navigate conflict, Protect yourself from cell phone and wifi toxicity, Ayurveda & How To Eat For Your Dosha? Also see: Non-toxic deoderant, Colonics, the Soup Cleanse, well you get the idea. Have fun, enjoy the laugh.

 

[Artemus]

I have to admit that "soup cleanse" was a new one for me. I had a good cleansing when I returned from China last year, perhaps even due to something in a soup I was given. Does that count?

 

[credoconsolans]

You guys much not buy as cheap a watch as I do. I spent $9 on a watch at the drug store. It lasted 3 months. I put a new battery in. Then it lasted 3 weeks. And died. ANY Rolex will beat that kind of garbage. Of course a Rolex needs adjusting. So do Steinways.

As for Bentleys, the article was less than helpful about how many years it was using as comparison and from the same above referenced article:

"The firm hit back at the survey, saying it was “not an accurate reflection of the Bentley ownership experience, as it covers less than four per cent of the Bentley vehicles of comparable age on the road in the UK”.

Of course Bentley tried to discredit the survey...they are trying to sell cars. Google "Bentley reliability" and you will see that the terrible reliability is universally recognized. Now, when you compare a Rolex to a $9 drug store watch, a Bentley to a Yugo, or designer-brand riding boots to fake leather knock-offs, of course the more expensive product will be better. But the point of the thread is not that it is never possible to get a better product by spending more, it is that beyond some point people spend ludicrous amounts to get worse performance. Try comparing a Bentley to a Toyota Avalon (or even to a Toyota Camry) and the Toyotas come out ahead as automobiles. Or compare a Rolex to a Seiko or Citizen...the $100 watches are far less expensive, far more accurate, more reliable, and look the same as the luxury Swiss watches without any adjustment or other maintenance whatsoever (not even changing batteries). So by any rational definition, which is the better product?

Which was my point.

 

[Artemus]

Of course Bentley tried to discredit the survey...they are trying to sell cars. Google "Bentley reliability" and you will see that the terrible reliability is universally recognized. Now, when you compare a Rolex to a $9 drug store watch, a Bentley to a Yugo, or designer-brand riding boots to fake leather knock-offs, of course the more expensive product will be better. But the point of the thread is not that it is never possible to get a better product by spending more, it is that beyond some point people spend ludicrous amounts to get worse performance. Try comparing a Bentley to a Toyota Avalon (or even to a Toyota Camry) and the Toyotas come out ahead as automobiles. Or compare a Rolex to a Seiko or Citizen...the $100 watches are far less expensive, far more accurate, more reliable, and look the same as the luxury Swiss watches without any adjustment or other maintenance whatsoever (not even changing batteries). So by any rational definition, which is the better product?

Which was my point.

You said in your first post

Status markers are of extreme quality and durability.

In many cases (such as Bentley and Rolex) they aren't. People buy them to show that they can afford to keep them running despite their poor durability when there are far cheaper and more reliable options available.

 

[thebeave]

Another area where "Better" is worse, is in appliances. Lots of the wealthier people in my area like to remodel their kitchens with trendy, expensive stainless steel appliances. Like SubZero for refrigerators and Wolf, Thermador and Viking for stoves. Or obscure European brands. Unfortunately, they have horrible reliability (and safety) issues and parts are hard to get and expensive. They would have been better served with a cheaper, reliable, but boring Whirlpool appliance. Its especially hilarious when they have all this fancy stuff, but can barely cook. I know a woman who spent many tens of thousands remodeling her kitchen with the latest and greatest and most expensive stuff around, but some of her close friends told me she can't even cook. Sure enough, one day she opens the fridge to get me a soda and its practically empty except for some sodas, condiments and bologna! Its all about the image.

 

[Artemus]

I'll add one more. Last year I traveled to China and during the trip I saw a former student of mine who is now a professor there. He gave me a bottle of Wuliangye baijiu as a gift, which I saved for a special occasion. Well, the special occasion was a few days ago when we hosted a going away party for a long time colleague who knew this student well so we opened the baijiu for a toast. One of us should have searched "baijiu flavor" first. Comparisons to gasoline, kerosene, "hot trash," and (my favorite) "shit (that) tastes like socks with AIDS" come up. Of course the "style guides" are recommending everyone spend $200 per bottle on it because it is just oh so sophisticated to do so.

(I do of course feel terrible that I can't appreciate the well-meaning gift from my former student.)

 

[gmbteach]

Another area where "Better" is worse, is in appliances. Lots of the wealthier people in my area like to remodel their kitchens with trendy, expensive stainless steel appliances. Like SubZero for refrigerators and Wolf, Thermador and Viking for stoves. Or obscure European brands. Unfortunately, they have horrible reliability (and safety) issues and parts are hard to get and expensive. They would have been better served with a cheaper, reliable, but boring Whirlpool appliance. Its especially hilarious when they have all this fancy stuff, but can barely cook. I know a woman who spent many tens of thousands remodeling her kitchen with the latest and greatest and most expensive stuff around, but some of her close friends told me she can't even cook. Sure enough, one day she opens the fridge to get me a soda and its practically empty except for some sodas, condiments and bologna! Its all about the image.

When I remodelled my kitchen over the road in my old house, I went with what the kitchen company recommended for the dishwasher, stove top and oven and I was reasonably happy with my choice.

When Bilby and I remodelled the kitchen here two years later, we went with better appliances that suited OUR needs. Such as a 900mm cooktop, a Bosch fan forced oven and a Bosch dishwasher. They cost a bit more, but I have a lovely wide cooktop, which is great with big pans, and a kitchen I can cook in. I also have granite benchtops and a glass splash back. Quality, but functional.

With regards to your post though, I agree, some people go for the 'fashion' and 'image' and not for what is best.

 

[thebeave]

Another area where "Better" is worse, is in appliances. Lots of the wealthier people in my area like to remodel their kitchens with trendy, expensive stainless steel appliances. Like SubZero for refrigerators and Wolf, Thermador and Viking for stoves. Or obscure European brands. Unfortunately, they have horrible reliability (and safety) issues and parts are hard to get and expensive. They would have been better served with a cheaper, reliable, but boring Whirlpool appliance. Its especially hilarious when they have all this fancy stuff, but can barely cook. I know a woman who spent many tens of thousands remodeling her kitchen with the latest and greatest and most expensive stuff around, but some of her close friends told me she can't even cook. Sure enough, one day she opens the fridge to get me a soda and its practically empty except for some sodas, condiments and bologna! Its all about the image.

When I remodelled my kitchen over the road in my old house, I went with what the kitchen company recommended for the dishwasher, stove top and oven and I was reasonably happy with my choice.

When Bilby and I remodelled the kitchen here two years later, we went with better appliances that suited OUR needs. Such as a 900mm cooktop, a Bosch fan forced oven and a Bosch dishwasher. They cost a bit more, but I have a lovely wide cooktop, which is great with big pans, and a kitchen I can cook in. I also have granite benchtops and a glass splash back. Quality, but functional.

With regards to your post though, I agree, some people go for the 'fashion' and 'image' and not for what is best.

I purposely left out Bosch. They are expensive, but their quality is generally quite good. It's what I would get if I had money to throw around on appliances.

 

[gmbteach]

When I remodelled my kitchen over the road in my old house, I went with what the kitchen company recommended for the dishwasher, stove top and oven and I was reasonably happy with my choice.

When Bilby and I remodelled the kitchen here two years later, we went with better appliances that suited OUR needs. Such as a 900mm cooktop, a Bosch fan forced oven and a Bosch dishwasher. They cost a bit more, but I have a lovely wide cooktop, which is great with big pans, and a kitchen I can cook in. I also have granite benchtops and a glass splash back. Quality, but functional.

With regards to your post though, I agree, some people go for the 'fashion' and 'image' and not for what is best.

I purposely left out Bosch. They are expensive, but their quality is generally quite good. It's what I would get if I had money to throw around on appliances.

There are a few things I will spend more money on for good quality - and appliances is one of them! Considering how much you use them and how inconvenient it is to actually try and replace them into an already established kitchen, it's where quality counts.

 

[credoconsolans]

Which was my point.

You said in your first post

Status markers are of extreme quality and durability.

In many cases (such as Bentley and Rolex) they aren't. People buy them to show that they can afford to keep them running despite their poor durability when there are far cheaper and more reliable options available.

As I pointed out, perspective is everything. A Rolex is far superior to any $9 watch I've ever owned. I also pointed out, as did Bentley, that the original article was flawed because of the usage of only late model information. How about historically? Even the 2nd reference didn't address that.