Am I crazy or does this make sense?

I'm not sure I understand his objection.

Can he find comparable shoes for $21.00 a pair?

Kids need shoes. Lots of shoes.

His objection is that Mo doesn't currently need shoes.

That's true. Mo has shoes. He doesn't need new shoes.

But dang..... $120 worth of shoes for $41. That is hard to pass up.

Mr. B doesn't get it when I find the shoe I like on a good sale and I'll buy 10 pairs at a time. I have one kind of shoe I wear (and I have only worn this particular kind of shoe for 30 years). Sure, maybe I'll speand $300 on shoes but I don't have to buy shoes for 5 years.

When I do that he thinks I'm crazy.

But Mr. B has a very physical job. He easily goes through 6 or 7 pairs of shoes a year. He pays about $90 per pair (he works in sneakers). I wanted Mr. B to use the coupon to stock up but he thought that was crazy.

Mr. B and I have a real disconnect on the idea of "value" I guess.

Well, some people don't get the value of stocking up at Sam's and putting 5/6 of it in the freezer, either.

Does he not understand "pay $41 now or pay $120 later"? That's $79 worth of power tools he can buy....

yeah
i dont get the objection either.

I have an entire drawer dedicated to the Target summer t-shirts for jillian.
When they go on sale and hit the 50% off rack? those things are 3.00 or less a piece. I always buy the next size up. I invest less then 50 a year in her clothes and little woman has more then she needs as it is.

Shoes?
If i found that kind of deal? You bet your bum I would do it too

Sure, would do, have done.

She just grew out of a pair of size 2 Converse sneakers that I bought when she was wearing size 11. (For those who may not know, youth sizes start at 1 0r 2 for babies, then go to 13 and start over again. So since Converse sneakers are a size big for girls, I bought them 5 sizes ago.) They were super-cheap at the Gap, snapped 'em up.

edit: er, didn't have her wearing them right away -- they were in storage for 2-3 years, then came out when they started to fit.

One thing though is that I don't do that for seasonal shoes because her feet grow unpredictably and sometimes really fast. So I won't buy ahead for sandals or snowboots, for example. Did it once and she zoomed right past -- they were too big one season, but too small the next season.

This is key in our kind of climate. On the flip side, it means you can find never-worn kids sandals/boots at thrift shops - the shoes/kids/season didn't managee to match up.

Sorry I'm spazzy (three posts in a row and an edit too), still haven't woken up fully...



I wonder if it's less about "value" and more about "stuff"? E.G. is the same way -- he does like/ appreciate thrift but he HATES having a bunch of stuff around. He is infinitely happier carting stuff off to Goodwill than bringing home shiny new stuff.

He pretty much always winces when he sees that I've gone shopping -- he knows I'm cheap, he intellectually knows that sozlet needs new clothes and shoes as she grows, he just can't stand the idea of more stuff.

So I can see him subscribing to the idea of working through shoes, buying a new pair, and getting rid of the old pair as being preferable to stocking up on a bunch of shoes.

Totally...

ok, so here's a slightly tricky idea - save a pair or two of old shoes to get rid of when new ones are being brought in - make the in/out balance more obvious?

Yeah, I do that. Helps calm him down.

Well, I don't save per se, just that's usually roughly how it works. If I buy ahead, the new shoes are in storage and out of sight -- they come out when the old shoes are too small, and the old shoes go bye-bye (either right out the door or in storage). (He is grateful, when he remembers, that I'm the one who takes care of all of this stuff so he doesn't have to think about it. He's not a fan of shopping. I am. Works out nicely.)

exactly. 10 items come in and 2 items goes out.

With two girls less than two years apart, we have LOTS of stuff saved.

You betcha . . . you ain't gone yet?

I think this statement is exactly right (this is, in fact, about value-- not about stuff). I am with Mr. B. on this.

The claim is that with Boomerangs little scheme she would be getting $120 worth of shoes for $41. The problem is the claim that the are worth $120. How do you calculate "worth"?

Obviously the original calculation is based on the normal full price-- if they cost $120 they must be worth $120. There are a couple of problems with this logic.

1. Spending $120 now (or whatever part of this $120 you won't use right away) for something you will not use for two years means that there won't be $120 to use for other things. You could avoid crazy interest rate by paying down credit card debt, or buy stuff you really need now, or even put into the stock market.

Your are basically losing the use of this money for a long period of time.

2. There is risk that you will lose your "investment". What happens in two years when your son refuses to wear shoes that are out of style. When your kid feels a strong need to have Brand Y, you either have to force him to wear Brand X (no matter what his friends think) or you are going to be spending more money.

3. What happens when Brand X has a sale in six month that would have given you an even better deal? This obviously lowers the value of your current deal.


Your plan paying todays prices now for future shoes is an fairly risky proposition.

The putative "value" of any product is meaningless--the only things that matter are the popularity of the brand, and what price the market will bear as a result.

Are you on your way out the door yet, Boom?

The question for me would be: how long do Brand X shoes last? If they're super-hardy, quality shoes (which they sound like they might be), Mo might not get enough wear out of them (to warrant 2 pairs of size 4s) before he moves onto the next size.

That's a little harsh Set.

I sure hope she doesn't leave him over shoes.

I'll bet you thought that was clever, huh?