Without any special rancour, Vimes stretched this theory to explain why Sybil Ramkin lived twice as comfortably as he did by spending about half as much every month. http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Sam_Vimes_Theory_of_Economic_Injustice&oldid=5782, Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” Let’s say you get a $100k student loan to get a master’s degree in a STEM subject, and the interest on the loan is 6% fixed, and the duration is 15 years. Follow. Radical Centrism He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. Take boots, for example. Objectivism This is not even counting stock compensation or sign-on bonuses or other perks. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. However, these costs tend to stay fixed at an individual level relative to income. When held to the same scrutiny of an actual economic theory, it has a lot of holes, no pun intended. Take boots, for example. An extensive archive of hundreds of posts and thousands of comments dating back to 2011 procured for your amusement . “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. But when you break down the numbers, it’s possible to still have a lot of residual income living in the Silicon Valley, even with only earning a low six figures. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness Take boots, for example. Having wealth to that degree is certainly more sticky than a smaller amounts. You think Russia … March 1, 2021 March 6, 2021 Q. A road map for 2016: Restoring Optimism to the GOP, Wealth, Intellectualism, and Individualism, Jordan Peterson’s IQ…estimate and Vox Day may be wrong, Taleb: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (Wrong again! #terry pratchett #gnu terry pratchett #discworld #stephen briggs #the ankh-morpork archives. Take boots, for example. If you’ve never heard of The Sam Vimes “Boots” Theory of Economic Injustice, it basically means it’s expensive to be poor. Read my monthly wealth report here. No other quote could begin this book, if for no reason than it’s probably one of the most famous Pratchett-isms of all time. The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice runs thus: At the time of Men at Arms, Samuel Vimes earned thirty-eight dollars a month as a Captain of the Watch, plus allowances. But what about the argument that the costs of living in Silicon Valley are too high, even for STEM workers, unless you’re a multi-millionaire. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. The payments are only $850 a month, which relatively speaking is tiny if you’re earning post-tax $70+/year, which is not uncommon for STEM graduates. In our discussions earlier this week, two different GRS readers pointed me to the Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness, which is derived from this passage in a Terry Pratchett novel: This is an astute observation. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. But getting rich takes more than just saving money, in the long-run. When you look at cost per use (or similar metrics), quality items event… The analogy used for the Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness? It’s true that poverty is more expensive in the long-run. Add $1,500/month for other misc. A $50 pair of boots might cost more than a $10 one but will be able to last an entire lifetime. Yeah, you have to factor in living expenses, but with the exception of rent and insurance, those tend to be constant regardless of location and profession. The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice runs thus: At the time of Men at Arms, Samuel Vimes earned thirty-eight dollars a month as a Captain of the Watch, plus allowances. Latest and Upcoming Publications by or about Terry Pratchett. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. No discussion of this is complete without a reference to the Sam Vimes “Boots” Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: The reason the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. 180 notes. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”-Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was beyond his pocket and the most he could hope for was an affordable pair of boots costing ten dollars, which might with … The context of the 'Boots Theory' is that Vimes understands that he's poor and grew up poor (buying clothes from shonky shops [I suspect there's an allusion to non-white owned second hand shops, and how they add value and help the community]) but there were those who were even poor-er (those that resorted to buying from pawn shops [I suspect there's an allusion to white owned second hand shops, … A FANG, on the other hand, can pay cash on the barrelhead and throw in some options as a bonus, for that old-time SV flavor. By this model, one reason the rich are so rich is because they manage to spend less money… and not just on boots. Otherwise, you’ll just be running on the economic treadmill, destined to burn out. Oligarchy He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. In Silicon Valley, the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,300 a month. Take boots, for example. Gwern likens it to ‘gold handcuffs’. Vimes is a very conflicted character: An incorruptible idealist with deep beliefs in justice and an abiding love of his city, he is also a committed cynic whose knowledge of human nature constantly reminds him how far off those ideals are. The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. I don’t think it was ever intended to be a serious economic analysis, but I constantly see it quoted and mentioned on sites such as Reddit, as if it is. In summation, people get rich by making a lot of money while keeping recurring expenses low relative to income, and then investing the excess in compounding investments such as stocks and home equity. Classical Liberalism This was the Captain Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness.” —Sam Vimes, Men At Arms! This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socio-economic unfairness. (The Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory comes into play here.) He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. Net Worth Report: Mar-2021. The wage premium from having a degree, especially if you major in STEM, makes it worthwhile in the long-run despite the student loan debt. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. In this example, purchasing quality boots costs $50 instead of $10. After all, how can a startup compete with a FANG or AmaGooBookSoft or whatever big tech company offering salaries like \$200k+ & perks to the best software engineers? Not sure if that is was being tested in this study or if the cash amount is more modest. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” Still have $89k. From my own empirical observations, there are no truck drivers, fast-food workers, or door greeters retiring at 35-45 with a couple million dollars, but there are some in tech or legal who have. The conflic… A really good pair of leather boots, the sort that would last years and years, cost fifty dollars. Gwern writes: These points mean that employees will have a hard time saving up large amounts of capital to serve as cushions, retirement savings, or seed investments for a startup of their own; they will be risk-averse to being fired or switching jobs, as those incur loss of working time/salary and risk extended periods of unemployment, and, perhaps most importantly, startups – which are cash-poor equity-rich – will struggle even more to be founded or then hire employees. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” Not bad. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. Quality costs more in the short-term. Pratchett's whimsically expressed Vimes' Boots Theory proposes that rich people are rich because they spend less because they can buy better things. Empiricism What boots theory is saying is that the rich have assets that provide ongoing value, in addition to their income producing assets, and so even someone with only (modern numbers) $500,000 in assets (house, car, stuff, some investments) and a part time non-profit job that pays $25,000 a year is going to live a more comfortable life than someone in Vimes position of ~$1,000 in assets and … A secretary can barely keep up with the recurring expenses and thus never has any money left over to invest with, but the tech worker, even in a high cost of living area such as Silicon Valley, can still have a lot of residual income with which to invest with. albaharu. Pragmatism (realpolitik) However, the economics reverse over time. But of course one of the consequences of being able to buy better things is that one can then capitalize – quite literally – on the better thing, securing paying work that would otherwise be unavailable to one. Having married into the upper classes, he still possesses an innate dislike of inherited wealth and an instinctive revulsion towards social inequality. Take boots, for example. If you look at the Forbes 400 list, all those people became wealthy not by saving money but by either earning a lot of money or iniheriitng it. Money Leave a comment [NOTE: These reports are shared to document and share real life financial numbers… Some months I am up, and others I am down, but it all gets displayed in hopes of giving you a little more perspective on stuff.] > This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness. The ducks on an island part was basically a shiatty restatement of the Sam Vimes boot theory of economic unfairness "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. January 2, 2019. Minarchism The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. This is why people on /r/financialindependence and /r/investing stress indexing instead of buying individual stocks, because by buying the S&P 500 you are guaranteed to capture the total return of the market, which is safer than trying to pick winners. So you are still left with $107k. If you make $210k/year, after taxes you are still taking home $135k/year. by Sir Terry Pratchett. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Techno-Libertarianism Sure, that startup might be able to offer them handsome stock options with an expected value (in the very distant future after the increasingly-hypothetical IPO) of say \$150k, but this equity is effectively worthless to an engineer who needs to make rent now. The Patrician observes that Vimes is anti-authoritarian even though he is, himself, an authority figure, which is "practically Zen". He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. Propertarianism Look how much credit card debt people get into buying expensive things. expenses such as food and health insurance and internet access and phone plan and car payment for a crappy car (no need to splurge). Neoconservatism Negative gearing, investments, on-paper-only ‘losses’, it doesn’t change the fact that they can get at that wealth. ), Taleb Gets Called Out for Spreading BS Again, The Covid Stimulus Inflation Debate, Continued. The biggest recurring expenses include mortgage expenses, rent, insurance, student loans, auto loans, and credit cards. Consequentialism This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” So, money given to rich people isn’t actually as useful in the economy as money given to poor people, because rich people don’t NEED to spend it (and remember, I’m talking about the really rich, not the aspirational show ponies like the Kardashians who serve as a distraction). A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. (MA) He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. Incrementalism, Rationalism The Sam Vimes Boots Economic Theory. Monarchy archevel. Vimes then also gives the golems and gargoyles, ‘despite being by nature toothless,’ one nominal dental appointment per year of not more than two hours.) You have to make a lot of money . Logical positivism, Timocracy Link Parent. Take boots, for example. Of course, if you add children to the equation, expenses rise dramatically, but this can be offset to some degree by having a double income family. You have to have money to save money Meritocracy. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was beyond his pocket and the most he could hope for was an affordable pair of boots costing ten dollars, which might with luck last a year or so before he would need to resort to makeshift cardboard insoles so as to prolong the moment of shelling out another ten dollars. The $10 one will need replacing every year or so. Utilitarianism “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. 6 votes. The Sam Vimes “Boots” Theory of Economic Injustice is the brainchild of Terry Pratchet as posited by the fictional character Sam Vimes. The debt is not that big of a deal if the pay even just mediocre. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. Therefore over a period of ten years, he might have paid out a hundred dollars on boots, twice as much as the man who could afford fifty dollars up front ten years before. And he would still have wet feet. This is (humorously) illustrated by Terry Pratchett's fictional character Sam Vimes, in the book Men At Arms: The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. The Vimes Theory and the MMM post express a philosophy that I imagine is executed by Fayez Sarofim in the stewardship of the firm’s assets. The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. † See: Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness. The Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice. Would probably be like a fish out of water in a Wetherspoons or a rough nightclub (with or without a rotating dancefloor with sticky floorboards) or a disadvantaged neighbourhood (unless they were into ethnography or working for a charity, possibly). Reactionary Modernism This page was last edited on 24 September 2012, at 00:11. The Vimes Boot Theory of Economics I've always loved Vimes concept of economics that a rich man can buy an expensive pair of boots that last years longer than a poor man's cheap cardboard boots, thus the rich man spends less money in the long run. “Well first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You are only paying $10k/month for loans for $70k/year of disposable income. Neoliberalism Even if you don’t want to be rich, do note that to live life on your own terms, you need at least a certain amount of wealth. From what I have read, people who achieve financial independence early in life–such as on popular subs such as /r/financialindependence, /r/investng and /r/personalfinance– have good-paying careers, and that money is invested in stocks and a down-payment on a home while also keeping other expenses low. “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. So While a doctor, a lawyer, or a tech worker may make 5x as much as a secretary, it’s not like the living expenses of the former are 5x as much as the secretary, but maybe only 1-2x as much depending on student loans and cost of living. Laundromats are more expensive over the long run than buying your own washing and drying machine. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. Take boots, for example. September 5, 2020. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. A Rolex will last a lot longer I’m sure than a cheap carnival game watch, but unless you live to 1000 or something and plan on buying a lot of watches, such a large purchase will make you poorer, not richer. A really good pair of leather boots, the sort that would last years and years, cost fifty dollars. The Sam Vimes “Boots” Theory of Economic Injustice. 7 March 2021: According to several booksellers websites, a new edition of the The Discworld Companion, titled either "The Ultimate Discworld Companion" or "The Absolute Discworld Companion", is due to be published in 2021.According to Waterstones it will be 416 pages and published by Orion. If someone only owns 30 shares of Philip Morris International, the lack of price movement over the past four years might make you anxious and impatient. Simply put: It costs less to be rich, and it costs more to be poor. Also, people lose lots of money, not by making a lot of frequent low-quality purchases (such as overpriced Starbucks coffee or leaky boots), but by ruinous one-time purchases such as overpaying for a home during a bubble or losing a lot of money heeding a bad stock tip. Same for renting versus buying. Content is sorted from newest to oldest. What about student loans? A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. Aristocracy