The Sam Vimes “Boots” theory of socioeconomic unfairness, often called simply the boots theory, is an economic theory that people in poverty have to buy cheap and subpar products that need to be replaced repeatedly, proving more expensive in the long run than more expensive items.
Sorry, but no. The materials may look the same, but (for example) a good pair of Wolverine boots - 1,000 mile or 1883 - are made with much higher-quality parts and manufacturing methods than your average pair of shoes. From the stitching (Goodyear Welt, FTW) to the sole material to the grade of leather used in the uppers, it’s all chosen for superior durability.
I have even seen this within a single (previously favourite) brand that changed their sole supplier, and a pair went from 16-24 months before the soles wore out to 6-12 months before I couldn’t wear them anymore. The uppers remained perfectly fine, and I could have had the shoes re-soled, but due to the rarity of local cobblers that alone would have cost more than a brand-new shoe. So I just switched to something of commensurately higher quality that could reach the two-year usage point again.
I have also had $100 work boots that broke down within a single season, and a single pair of $500 work boots that are still going strong a decade later.
Quality exists. And quality costs. But you cannot identify quality on cost alone, because a lot of shit is expensive due to branding and hype, making it a Veblen good that isn’t worth what you pay for it.
It’s very hard to judge expensive-for-the-quality from expensive-for-the-brand without wearing them out first.
Not really. If you never heard the name on TV or advertising of any kind, they don’t need to advertise
See - Mephisto shoes