Spending It

Hal17

Or down on your hands and knees at the supermarket to see on the bottom shelf how much something per 100g is, compared to something else. Then an hour later worrying about how much inheritance tax I might have to pay.
Not rational, but old habits die hard !

I hate to admit it, but that is so true. 

zagfles

Moonwolf said:

zagfles said:

BikingBud said:

Fairness might apply is sports or playing games but surely the criteria here is value for money.

Do I consider the cost presents value.

I do not waste money but if the quality is increased by an uplift in price then is it worth it to me?

Meat pies are to my mind the best example.

A cheap pie has little meat. What there is will likely be the cheap cuts and poor tasteless gravy, that's why it is only a few quid but I am still dissatisfied and will not buy again

Buy a more expensive pie with more, better quality of meat and tasty gravy then the satisfaction rate will be higher and I would buy again.

I might try the pie with the gold leaf on the crust out of curiosity but might find the meat and taste is no better and I am being charged too much for the novelty. So generally will go back to meaty tasty pie. 

Across all consumer expenditure I will apply the same, I know what my daily allowable expenditure is but I won't blow it on something that add little satisfaction and therefore is poor value.

At some point when I decide to disappear on my bike for a few months, living within the daily budget might pay for that posh hotel for a few days vice the roadside camping. When I need a shower and proper bed that will be very good value.

Yup - there's clearly some products where paying more gets you a commensurate increase in quality, but a lot of the time the price uplift vastly exceeds the quality uplift. IIRC some university did a study where they reckoned on average a 50% increase in price gets you a 10% increase in quality.

Obviously there are many exceptions and even stuff where the cheaper item might be better. The problem is a lot of people actually believe the old maxims like "buy cheap buy twice" or "you get what you pay for". But anyone who uses MSE knows they're myths!

I’d be interested to see that study as I wonder what a 10% increase in quality means as price is easier to measure than quality.

A measurable 10% reduction in low light noise on a phone camera might equate to a much higher satisfaction with the final photos, and if there are lots of 10% improvements across the camera including noise, reduced colour fringing, reduced vignette, better colour balance then I might be enough happier with the resulting photos that a 50% higher price is worth it to me.

In fact, I would argue that is what this thread is about, if you are not going to run out of money then getting into the mindset that you can pay 50% for that extra quality because you will get pleasure from it, why not. I’d rather have a few extra happy memories than die with an extra £100k in the bank. I’m going to  buy a slightly more expensive wine as I think it tastes better, even if some scientist tells me most people can’t tell the difference.

Obviously, I’m still going to try and get the best bangs for my buck across all my spending, I might still need to decide if it is the more expensive wine or the camera that gives me most happiness.

ISTR searching for it last time I mentioned it but couldn't find it. Clearly "quality" is mainly subjective, perhaps they asked people to rate the quality, sometimes it'll be objective eg a cheap tin of tomatoes may contain 10% more water and 10% less tomatoes than a branded one but be 50% cheaper, so buying 2 tins of cheap tomatoes for the same price as one tin of branded tomatoes is better value. Assuming same quality of tomatoes. 

I think it's telling how some products eg wine can vary massively in price from a £4 a bottle to hundreds or even thousands of pounds, whereas beer, which IME varies just as much in quality as wine, has nowhere near the same price variability. I suspect the main reason is wine is more of a "posh" drink and there's a lot more snobbery when it comes to wine. 

zagfles

Secret2ndAccount said:

Nebulous2 said:

As I say I'm a bit out of touch but the price points used to run a bit like this:- A pair of wheels at 2.2kg £120.  Just under 2kg, £200. Just under 1600g £350 Just under 1400g £750. Just under 1200g £2000. 

Same thing for car wheels, but multiply all numbers by 10...

To a large extent, the price/quality curve is irrelevant.  If the product that is 10% better costs twice as much, you have two choices: pay it, or go without.

Or buy two of the cheaper one, then you get 180% of the quality for the same price as 100% 

I treat holidays a bit like that. I'd much rather go on 5 cheap holidays a year than 1 expensive one. And I do seem to be able to do 5 holidays for the price some people pay for 1. 

zagfles

michaels said:

In terms of quality measurement perhaps it is a product that costs 10% more to manufacture is sold for 50% more. However if the slightly better parts mean it lasts twice as long or works twice as fast then why not?

I do think in the UK we have too many people who don't check the price or simply equate more expensive with better especially with cheaper products hence the rip off Britain consequences.

Yes it does seem more British believe the "you get what you pay for" myth than other nationalities. A frequently mentioned hack on the travel board to get cheaper long haul business class flights is to fly from the EU, where the markup for BC is much less than from the UK. 

michaels

I sometimes think the best financial decisions I have made in my life are as a lucky consequence of my genes and/or upbringing.  Together they have probably allowed me to retire about 10 years earlier than otherwise. 




I enjoy neither alcohol nor cycling

german_keeper

zagfles said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

Nebulous2 said:

As I say I'm a bit out of touch but the price points used to run a bit like this:- A pair of wheels at 2.2kg £120.  Just under 2kg, £200. Just under 1600g £350 Just under 1400g £750. Just under 1200g £2000. 

Same thing for car wheels, but multiply all numbers by 10...

To a large extent, the price/quality curve is irrelevant.  If the product that is 10% better costs twice as much, you have two choices: pay it, or go without.

Or buy two of the cheaper one, then you get 180% of the quality for the same price as 100% 

I treat holidays a bit like that. I'd much rather go on 5 cheap holidays a year than 1 expensive one. And I do seem to be able to do 5 holidays for the price some people pay for 1. 

Just booked 2 weeks self catering in the Algarve next June for £403 each. I usually start the ball rolling and then Mrs GK does the hard yards on Trip Advisor and has the final say. Off to Lanzarote on Tuesday for a week all inclusive about £550 apiece.

It usually works fine but there was a week all inclusive in Fuerteventura back in March, dirt cheap even by our standards, which was a bit challenging. Only booked it because I got a few hundred quid which I didn't expect for my 60th birthday last year.

But it was a real eye opener to go for a diet coke/fanta when the bar opened at 10am and be in a queue of people getting wine/beer/spirits/cocktails. Some strange sights at 3 or 4 in the afternoon and several people we didn't seem to see much in the evenings.

My conclusion was that if your aim is just to drink your own body weight in alcohol every day then you just go for the cheapest option and if the food is a bit ropey and the rooms a bit outdated so what. Still look back on it with a strange sense of enjoyment. Weather was crap too!!    

Moonwolf

zagfles said:

Moonwolf said:

zagfles said:

BikingBud said:

Fairness might apply is sports or playing games but surely the criteria here is value for money.

Do I consider the cost presents value.

I do not waste money but if the quality is increased by an uplift in price then is it worth it to me?

Meat pies are to my mind the best example.

A cheap pie has little meat. What there is will likely be the cheap cuts and poor tasteless gravy, that's why it is only a few quid but I am still dissatisfied and will not buy again

Buy a more expensive pie with more, better quality of meat and tasty gravy then the satisfaction rate will be higher and I would buy again.

I might try the pie with the gold leaf on the crust out of curiosity but might find the meat and taste is no better and I am being charged too much for the novelty. So generally will go back to meaty tasty pie. 

Across all consumer expenditure I will apply the same, I know what my daily allowable expenditure is but I won't blow it on something that add little satisfaction and therefore is poor value.

At some point when I decide to disappear on my bike for a few months, living within the daily budget might pay for that posh hotel for a few days vice the roadside camping. When I need a shower and proper bed that will be very good value.

Yup - there's clearly some products where paying more gets you a commensurate increase in quality, but a lot of the time the price uplift vastly exceeds the quality uplift. IIRC some university did a study where they reckoned on average a 50% increase in price gets you a 10% increase in quality.

Obviously there are many exceptions and even stuff where the cheaper item might be better. The problem is a lot of people actually believe the old maxims like "buy cheap buy twice" or "you get what you pay for". But anyone who uses MSE knows they're myths!

I’d be interested to see that study as I wonder what a 10% increase in quality means as price is easier to measure than quality.

A measurable 10% reduction in low light noise on a phone camera might equate to a much higher satisfaction with the final photos, and if there are lots of 10% improvements across the camera including noise, reduced colour fringing, reduced vignette, better colour balance then I might be enough happier with the resulting photos that a 50% higher price is worth it to me.

In fact, I would argue that is what this thread is about, if you are not going to run out of money then getting into the mindset that you can pay 50% for that extra quality because you will get pleasure from it, why not. I’d rather have a few extra happy memories than die with an extra £100k in the bank. I’m going to  buy a slightly more expensive wine as I think it tastes better, even if some scientist tells me most people can’t tell the difference.

Obviously, I’m still going to try and get the best bangs for my buck across all my spending, I might still need to decide if it is the more expensive wine or the camera that gives me most happiness.

ISTR searching for it last time I mentioned it but couldn't find it. Clearly "quality" is mainly subjective, perhaps they asked people to rate the quality, sometimes it'll be objective eg a cheap tin of tomatoes may contain 10% more water and 10% less tomatoes than a branded one but be 50% cheaper, so buying 2 tins of cheap tomatoes for the same price as one tin of branded tomatoes is better value. Assuming same quality of tomatoes. 

I think it's telling how some products eg wine can vary massively in price from a £4 a bottle to hundreds or even thousands of pounds, whereas beer, which IME varies just as much in quality as wine, has nowhere near the same price variability. I suspect the main reason is wine is more of a "posh" drink and there's a lot more snobbery when it comes to wine. 

Wine is interesting because the tax and costs of bottling, transportation and sales mean that a minimum price wine probably costs a few pence a litre to actually make.

This could mean that the difference in price between a £5 bottle and a £10 bottle represents as much as a tenfold increase in production effort, so I’m guessing that somewhere between £8 and £15 a bottle in the supermarket is is a sweet spot. The price is high enough for a distinct improvement in quality but not so high it appears “exclusive”.

Cobbler_tone

Two weekly jars of £3.50 Bold Baked beans. Decadence.

zagfles

german_keeper said:

zagfles said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

Nebulous2 said:

As I say I'm a bit out of touch but the price points used to run a bit like this:- A pair of wheels at 2.2kg £120.  Just under 2kg, £200. Just under 1600g £350 Just under 1400g £750. Just under 1200g £2000. 

Same thing for car wheels, but multiply all numbers by 10...

To a large extent, the price/quality curve is irrelevant.  If the product that is 10% better costs twice as much, you have two choices: pay it, or go without.

Or buy two of the cheaper one, then you get 180% of the quality for the same price as 100% 

I treat holidays a bit like that. I'd much rather go on 5 cheap holidays a year than 1 expensive one. And I do seem to be able to do 5 holidays for the price some people pay for 1. 

Just booked 2 weeks self catering in the Algarve next June for £403 each. I usually start the ball rolling and then Mrs GK does the hard yards on Trip Advisor and has the final say. Off to Lanzarote on Tuesday for a week all inclusive about £550 apiece.

It usually works fine but there was a week all inclusive in Fuerteventura back in March, dirt cheap even by our standards, which was a bit challenging. Only booked it because I got a few hundred quid which I didn't expect for my 60th birthday last year.

But it was a real eye opener to go for a diet coke/fanta when the bar opened at 10am and be in a queue of people getting wine/beer/spirits/cocktails. Some strange sights at 3 or 4 in the afternoon and several people we didn't seem to see much in the evenings.

My conclusion was that if your aim is just to drink your own body weight in alcohol every day then you just go for the cheapest option and if the food is a bit ropey and the rooms a bit outdated so what. Still look back on it with a strange sense of enjoyment. Weather was crap too!!    

We rarely do AI, or even packages, mostly just get a cheap flight and find cheap/good value accommodation. But it's no surprise really that alcoholics will seek out holidays with unlimited free booze, why would you go AI unless you intend to make the most of it (or the price is such that it's good value even if you don't drink like a fish). Price aside, a major part of any holiday for us is seeking out good local eateries and bars rather that staying in the hotel. 

zagfles

Moonwolf said:

zagfles said:

Moonwolf said:

zagfles said:

BikingBud said:

Fairness might apply is sports or playing games but surely the criteria here is value for money.

Do I consider the cost presents value.

I do not waste money but if the quality is increased by an uplift in price then is it worth it to me?

Meat pies are to my mind the best example.

A cheap pie has little meat. What there is will likely be the cheap cuts and poor tasteless gravy, that's why it is only a few quid but I am still dissatisfied and will not buy again

Buy a more expensive pie with more, better quality of meat and tasty gravy then the satisfaction rate will be higher and I would buy again.

I might try the pie with the gold leaf on the crust out of curiosity but might find the meat and taste is no better and I am being charged too much for the novelty. So generally will go back to meaty tasty pie. 

Across all consumer expenditure I will apply the same, I know what my daily allowable expenditure is but I won't blow it on something that add little satisfaction and therefore is poor value.

At some point when I decide to disappear on my bike for a few months, living within the daily budget might pay for that posh hotel for a few days vice the roadside camping. When I need a shower and proper bed that will be very good value.

Yup - there's clearly some products where paying more gets you a commensurate increase in quality, but a lot of the time the price uplift vastly exceeds the quality uplift. IIRC some university did a study where they reckoned on average a 50% increase in price gets you a 10% increase in quality.

Obviously there are many exceptions and even stuff where the cheaper item might be better. The problem is a lot of people actually believe the old maxims like "buy cheap buy twice" or "you get what you pay for". But anyone who uses MSE knows they're myths!

I’d be interested to see that study as I wonder what a 10% increase in quality means as price is easier to measure than quality.

A measurable 10% reduction in low light noise on a phone camera might equate to a much higher satisfaction with the final photos, and if there are lots of 10% improvements across the camera including noise, reduced colour fringing, reduced vignette, better colour balance then I might be enough happier with the resulting photos that a 50% higher price is worth it to me.

In fact, I would argue that is what this thread is about, if you are not going to run out of money then getting into the mindset that you can pay 50% for that extra quality because you will get pleasure from it, why not. I’d rather have a few extra happy memories than die with an extra £100k in the bank. I’m going to  buy a slightly more expensive wine as I think it tastes better, even if some scientist tells me most people can’t tell the difference.

Obviously, I’m still going to try and get the best bangs for my buck across all my spending, I might still need to decide if it is the more expensive wine or the camera that gives me most happiness.

ISTR searching for it last time I mentioned it but couldn't find it. Clearly "quality" is mainly subjective, perhaps they asked people to rate the quality, sometimes it'll be objective eg a cheap tin of tomatoes may contain 10% more water and 10% less tomatoes than a branded one but be 50% cheaper, so buying 2 tins of cheap tomatoes for the same price as one tin of branded tomatoes is better value. Assuming same quality of tomatoes. 

I think it's telling how some products eg wine can vary massively in price from a £4 a bottle to hundreds or even thousands of pounds, whereas beer, which IME varies just as much in quality as wine, has nowhere near the same price variability. I suspect the main reason is wine is more of a "posh" drink and there's a lot more snobbery when it comes to wine. 

Wine is interesting because the tax and costs of bottling, transportation and sales mean that a minimum price wine probably costs a few pence a litre to actually make.

This could mean that the difference in price between a £5 bottle and a £10 bottle represents as much as a tenfold increase in production effort, so I’m guessing that somewhere between £8 and £15 a bottle in the supermarket is is a sweet spot. The price is high enough for a distinct improvement in quality but not so high it appears “exclusive”.

Yup that's probably true at the very lower end, but related to this I do find it odd that a pub which sells real ales, which require a lot of care and will have a short shelf life, generally sells for the similar price as mass produced lagers and nitrokeg beers which are dead and require little care.