Comment by citizenpaul
2 months ago
Its not late state capitalism. Its hidden inflation. The market for actual high quality boots is much smaller than you are thinking. Including your own desire. The reality is doc martins are selling for <$180 max, basically mid-high sneaker (non collectable) territory. Actual quality boots like the doc martins of the 80's probably cost over $1000 dollars now. Are you willing to pay over $1000 for boots? Because that is what quality boots cost now.
Doc martin didn't sacrifice the brand. They realized that people would never pay $1000 for doc martins so they just jettisoned the company name by rebranding into fast fashion before they totally disappear. It was probably the only choice by the time it was decided. There were probably some missteps along the way where they may have been able to keep their prices up enough to keep the quality but they missed it.
High quality boots definitely don't cost >$1000, and definitely not boots that are on par with the quality of DM from the 80s. DM from the 80s were "fine", but they still weren't really high quality and their soles were definitely not very durable.
Even today you can find excellent quality, resoleable boots, for $200-300. Just look at Redwing, Thursday, Wolverine and many, many others.
You can get boots that function as boots for $300. The thing is everyone has forgotten what high quality actually is. High quality boots are north of $700 starting price and can last 20 years.
This is of course a massively opinionated subject about price/quality so no one will ever agree but there are plenty brands north of $1000 now that probably are around as big market as doc martin was in the 80s. I'd consider that to be the more accurate comparison.
Just to be clear: you are not wrong.
That said, the vast majority of boot purchasers don't wear them enough to need Viberg, etc, quality, and almost anything will last them until they get bored of the purchase.
What I am curious about, though -- let's say you take technical outdoor mountaineering boots -- if you say "high quality boots are north of $700", why is it that mountaineering boots (thick leather, goodyear welted Vibram sole with high density and durable midsole, brass rivets, etc) can still be had in the $300 range.
The reality is that you're still paying a premium for the brand with White's, Viberg, etc, and for labor cost in HCOL manufacturing areas. There isn't $500 worth of difference between a Viberg Gobi Hiker ($910) and a Danner Mountain Light ($440).
Viberg (made in Denmark): https://viberg.com/products/hiker-gobi-regency-calf Danner (made in USA) : https://www.danner.com/men/hike/mountain-light-ii-5-brown.ht...
Heck, I can even shave more off the price and get something basically the same (Alico, made in Italy, $325). https://www.alicousa.com/product-page/summit-full-grain. I have been wearing my pair of Summits for 15 years already.
I have a pair of custom-made boots I bought a few decades ago for $500 and which have been repaired once. Don't wear them much now because they're so heavy. So, yeah, they're not really for me today but that's what high quality is.
1 reply →
Certainly not. You can buy great boots for 250$. I bought my Salomon boots 5 years ago, I wear them a heck of a lot in the Canadian winter, and they're good as new. Much more comfortable than a Doc Martens boot, even in their prime, resolable with a Vibram Megagrip sole, has a carbon fiber backing plate that will never wear out, etc...
What happened is that technology advanced, and now good quality boots don't look like Docs anymore. The market for high quality, vintage construction boots is tiny, because people who only care about quality won't buy them anymore, which is why they are expensive : only a special kind of people who care a lot about quality and looks/nostalgia are going to buy them.
People who need high quality boots just won't be satisfied with heavy, fussy, non-breathable leather and rubber boots.
I think I paid $300AUD for mine. I was very poor in the 80's, I would not have been able to afford the equivalent of $1000USD. I have vague memories of them costing around 80 GBP, which would be ~350 GBP now, so about half that $1K (but definitely more than I paid for them now, so your point is at least partially true).
And yes, I would be willing to pay that kind of money now for a pair of boots that would last me a decade again.
It was also kinda the point back in the 80's; your Docs were an investment. They cost decent money, but they'd last a decade and became part of your identity. Practically a physical extension of your body; I had a flatmate who regularly fell asleep in his and eventually developed trenchfoot from doing that. The boots were fine, his feet weren't. Most of my friends back in the day had one pair of shoes; their Docs. It was worthwhile investing in them because that was all you needed.
I think you're also right that the brand itself has changed and moved down-market, so they're charging less than they used to for a lower-quality product. But this is kinda my point; the brand is now being cannibalised and turned into a low-quality fast-fashion product marketed with a high-quality brand. This is obviously not going to work long-term, as people realise that Docs are now shite. As I said, in ten year's time the brand won't be worth anything.
Although Docs have almost given up making in Northampton, you'll still find a number of shoemakers producing good quality boots that should last a decade or more. You'll be paying £250-£500 as you guessed.
It’s also late stage capitalism.
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
Since the late 70s, policy changes and the modern management movement have caused worker pay to drop in real terms. Cut forward another decade or so and the entire retail landscape discovers people can no longer afford their products.
> Since the late 70s, policy changes and the modern management movement have caused worker pay to drop in real terms.
This isn't well established as the cause and there is reason to expect that it isn't. To start with, the Housing Theory of Everything fits better.
If this was about management practices then in competitive markets things would still be fine, you would only need one company to not do that and everybody would buy from them. But things still kind of suck even there, so what's that about? Housing costs would explain it. People spend more money on rent so they have less money to spend on other things, meanwhile companies have to pay higher rents too, so their customers have less money and simultaneously their business has higher costs. Somehow they have to lower prices while covering higher costs and the somehow is by enshitifying their products, i.e. that is the symptom rather than the cause.
But the Housing Theory of Everything is slightly off, because the real problem is a generalization of the theory. Housing is expensive because supply is artificially constrained, and it's artificial supply constraints -- insufficiently competitive markets -- that are the general underlying cause. Housing is a major example of this, probably the largest and most important, both because it's such a large proportion of personal expenses and because the restrictive zoning that imposes the constraint is so widespread.
But it's the same problem when you need a medical imaging scan and there are Certificate of Need laws that expressly prohibit new competitors from providing the service when the incumbents are charging inflated prices, and then those high costs get incorporated into health insurance premiums and Medicare taxes and reduce real wages by increasing the cost of living.
Regulatory capture has to be undone or it will be our undoing.
[dead]