The boots theory does not really hold for mass produced items, including boots. A usable pair of cheaply made boots costs less than resoling a good pair of boots. I propose the Buzz Bissinger boots theory: Buzz is not rich because he buys fancy boots, Buzz buys fancy boots because he inherited a lot of money.
https://www.gq.com/story/buzz-bissinger-shopaholic-gucci-add...
The sweet spot in TCO for cars is generally (look at Edmunds numbers) a new compact in base trim. TCO will go up with a more expensive or "higher quality" car. If you are in the position between choosing to finance a new compact at low/reasonable interest rates or pay outright for a beater, the new car will be the better deal. A used compact is actually an OK compromise if you don't have money up front or want lower payments - a 5-year-old Corolla has slightly higher TCO than a new one, but not by that much.
Being able to pay on time for a compact car requires some basic financial stability but that's not "rich".
> A usable pair of cheaply made boots costs less than resoling a good pair of boots.
Yes, it does, but it's worse for everyone:
- those who make the shoes because the conditions under which clothing in general is made are horrible (see e.g. the numerous instances of fires in Bangladeshi factories)
- the environment because these cheap boots are made out of fossil resources, they have to be shipped around, and at the end of their life time they can't be recycled so they either end up in landfills or, worse, trash incinerators
- for the end user since shopping boots consumes time and effort
For cars, hell for virtually all mass produced items, the same principle applies. And it's only "cheaper" because a lot of the problematic factors involved are costs that are externalized.
Oh ok, I was wrong. Working people should spend more of their paychecks on boots to prevent fires in Bangladeshi factories, and then it will be more comfortable walking to work because they can't afford a car. And no shopping in your utopia either.
Working class people should have larger paychecks so that they can afford proper clothing.
Look up charts for wage development and minimum wage on one side, and charts for CEO pay and gini coefficients (wealth distribution) on the other, over the last 50 years. There you have the answer why a working class person can only afford crap shoes and beater cars.
But then they'll go shopping and burn more fossil fuels and buy more things that set Bangladeshi factories on fire! And throw their old things in trash incinerators! Shouldn't they just have to eat their old boots when they can't be resoled any more? By the way, where do you think new soles come from?
The boot theory is nonsense that at best only applies at a pretty narrow range of consumer goods - stuff that is barely fit for purpose vs stuff that is.
Cars are a great example because you pretty much can't save money spending more up front on one new car than on another new car, and there isn't even that big a difference in TCO between a new car and a comparable five-year-old car.
Working class people in the USA buy beater trucks to save over buying a new truck, which is a different trade, mostly because trucks are a working class Veblen good. They don't want to be seen in a Corolla.
The sweet spot in TCO for cars is generally (look at Edmunds numbers) a new compact in base trim. TCO will go up with a more expensive or "higher quality" car. If you are in the position between choosing to finance a new compact at low/reasonable interest rates or pay outright for a beater, the new car will be the better deal. A used compact is actually an OK compromise if you don't have money up front or want lower payments - a 5-year-old Corolla has slightly higher TCO than a new one, but not by that much.
Being able to pay on time for a compact car requires some basic financial stability but that's not "rich".