How do you justify spending $500+ on shoes?

[DWFII]



If you don't feel like looking them all up and reading these reports in the scientific literature, I offer one person's summary:

It is not clear whether contaminated socks contribute to transmission or recurrence of infection.

It's clear to me...by virtue of both many decades of experience with shoes and factoring in an extensive knowledge of the properties and character of leather...as well as intimate, personal experience--contaminated shoes, and by extension, contaminated socks do contribute to transmission.

Routine laundry in hot water is sufficient to kill the organisms.

Routine washing of the feet with regular soap is effective in managing infection.

Do you think people in the military don't wash their feet regularly...with soap and hot water?

Antifungal sprays are highly effective in limiting colonization [COLOR=FF0000]of shoes[/COLOR].

[COLOR=FF0000]For shoes that are already contaminated[/COLOR], antifungal sprays, UV, and ozone treatments are effective.

Just quote the words, in context, that say this...specifically this. And then tell me why that excerpt should take precedence over other, just as scientific, evidence that I presented linking used shoes to the spread of these infections.

I can find no scientific reports of the risk of developing tinea pedis or onychomycosis from wearing used shoes. Of course, that does not mean it cannot occur. However, the risk factors have been carefully studied by a number of groups for many years and used shoes so far have not hit the radar as a concern.

Despite the links I provided...

Seems like you are picking and choosing what you want to believe. Reading through your summary it appears highly contradictory in several respects. It admits that there is a "high risk." It admits that shoes and socks can become contaminated. And yet your summary says that there is no "scientific" reports/evidence.

It begs the question: what evidence would you believe?

--

 

[konda]

Off topic: I'd like to know how one justifies spending 500 bucks on RTW pants. I mean WTF...

On topic: Shoes are my hobby. I love cool shoes. Guns are also my hobby and I love cool guns. They cost a hell of a lot more though. If I played hockey even a tad bit more seriously, I'd end up spending around 200-300 bucks a month just on sticks and sharpening my skates + what it costs to pay for the ice time.

So there really isn't any good means to justify the money spent when we're talking about hobbies. Everyone has a hobby/hobbies and depending on one's income, an x amount of money is spent on it/them. Usually what a person spends on a hobby is in no way consistent with one's use of money in general.

 

[dbhdnhdbh]

Quote: Diabetics get lots of foot infections. So there is great concern in the medical community and medical literature about preventing and treating these infections. Diabetics also get far worse complications from their infections, including if bad enough, amputation. For most people getting foot infections is an annoyance, and perhaps if really bad can force them to take potentially toxic medications. For diabetics foot infections can be life threatening. So if you want to see studies of risk of foot infections, look to the diabetic literature. There is just not nearly enough at risk for otherwise healthy people for it to attract as much attention.

Quote:

Diabetic foot ulcers: Part I. Pathophysiology and prevention.

Alavi A1, Sibbald RG2, Mayer D3, Goodman L4, Botros M5, Armstrong DG6, Woo K7, Boeni T8, Ayello EA9, Kirsner RS10.

Author information


Abstract

Diabetes mellitus is a serious, life-long condition that is the sixth leading cause of death in North America. Dermatologists frequently encounter patients with diabetes mellitus. Up to 25% of patients with diabetes mellitus will develop diabetic footulcers. Foot ulcer patients have an increased risk of amputation and increased mortality rate. The high-risk diabetic foot can be identified with a simplified screening, and subsequent foot ulcers can be prevented. Early recognition of the high-risk footand timely treatment will save legs and improve patients' quality of life. Peripheral arterial disease, neuropathy, deformity, previous amputation, and infection are the main factors contributing to the development of diabetic foot ulcers. Early recognition of the high-risk foot is imperative to decrease the rates of mortality and morbidity. An interprofessional approach (ie, physicians, nurses, and foot care specialists) is often needed to support patients' needs.

Claghorn,

It does seem that the of foot infections experienced by people who wear enclosed shoes are unique to those who wear enclosed shoes. It is not that those who wear sandals or go barefoot avoid foot infections, it is just that they get different infections. With microbes that do not need the enclosed environment to thrive.

Rubber soles as a risk factor. I could not find much, but there was this

Quote:

Prevalence and risk factors for superficial fungal infections among Italian Navy Cadets.

Ingordo V, Naldi L, Fracchiolla S, Colecchia B.

Author information


Abstract

BACKGROUND:​

Limited studies on the prevalence and risk factors for superficial mycoses are available.

OBJECTIVE:​

The aim of this paper was to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors for superficial mycoses (dermatophytes and Candida spp.) in a sample of young Italian people resident at a military school.

METHODS:​

A total of 1,024 young cadets from the Italian Navy Petty Officers School in Taranto, including 975 (95.21%) males and 49 (4.79%) females, mean age 22.5 +/- 3.0 years (range 18-30), were consecutively examined by the same observer. A complete dermatological examination was performed on all the subjects, and skin scrapings for microscopy and fungal culture were obtained from suspected lesions. All the subjects completed a questionnaire providing information on sports practice, swimming-pool attendance, marching, wearing shower sandals, frequent use of 'gummed' shoes, history of severe traumas to the nails, presence of hyperhidrosis and history of superficial mycoses. The affected subjects were also asked if they were aware of their condition. Data were analysed by the Statistical Analysis System, version 8.0. The Fisher exact test and odds ratios were calculated.

RESULTS:​

A total of 33 subjects (3.2%) were found to suffer from a mycologically confirmed fungal infection (3% by dermatophytes and 0.2% by Candida albicans): tinea pedis/Candida intertrigo of the feet was suspected in 126 (12.1%) subjects and confirmed in 30 (2.9%), including 28 cases of tinea pedis and 2 cases of Candida intertrigo; tinea cruris/Candida intertrigo of the groin was suspected in 28 (2.7%) subjects, but confirmed in only 1 case (0.1%);onychomycosis was suspected in 64 (6.1%) subjects and confirmed in 2 cases (0.2%). The organism most frequently responsible in tinea pedis was Trichophyton mentagrophytes var. interdigitale (82.1%). The same species (50%) and T. mentagrophytes var. mentagrophytes (50%) were associated with tinea unguium, Epidermophyton floccosum was the only species detected in tinea cruris. Non-dermatophytic filamentous fungi (Penicillium spp., Fusarium spp., Aspergillus spp. and Paecilomyces spp.), not considered pathogenic, were isolated in 48 samples. None of the risk factors analysed were significantly associated with fungal infection. Only 2 subjects out of the 33 people affected were aware of their condition. They both had tinea pedis.

CONCLUSION:​

The prevalence of mycoses in sailors living in an Italian military school was lower than rates detected in other military populations. This may be due to the cadets' lifestyle and environmental conditions. The most frequent infection was tinea pedis, mainly caused by T. interdigitale. None of the investigated risk factors were significantly associated with the disease, and most of the affected individuals were not aware of their condition.

 

[RogerP]

If you don't feel like looking them all up and reading these reports in the scientific literature, I offer one person's summary:

There is a high risk of anyone developing athletes foot, with a lower risk of getting nail infections

Most people who have these infections are unaware of it (i.e. not horribly crippling diseases)

The risk is very high for people who have lives like elite soccer players or military recruits training in ground combat- long periods of time in their shoes while engaging in strenuous, sweaty, exercise.

The infections are communicable and are far more prevalent among people who engage in these activities in groups.

The communication seems to involve moist areas like showers.

Socks can become contaminated with the organisms.

It is not clear whether contaminated socks contribute to transmission or recurrence of infection.

Routine laundry in hot water is sufficient to kill the organisms.

Routine washing of the feet with regular soap is effective in managing infection.

Antifungal sprays are highly effective in limiting colonization of shoes.

For shoes that are already contaminated, antifungal sprays, UV, and ozone treatments are effective.

Elderly patients and patients of any age with diabetes should be careful about foot hygiene.

I can find no scientific reports of the risk of developing tinea pedis or onychomycosis from wearing used shoes. Of course, that does not mean it cannot occur. However, the risk factors have been carefully studied by a number of groups for many years and used shoes so far have not hit the radar as a concern.

Note that I did NOT say that one cannot find assertions on the internet that wearing used shoes can cause foot infections. I am just saying that I cannot find any scientific evidence that such assertions are true. That being the case, I cannot consider this to be a significant reason to avoid such shoes. If anyone is aware of EVIDENCE on this subject (not opinion) I would love to be pointed in that direction.

Good info (and thanks for summarizing).

 

[dbhdnhdbh]

But I will cheerfully agree that the risk of getting a foot infection from used shoes is almost certainly higher than zero. I am willing to take that chance. It seems small to me. And people can also have reactions to the substances used to make shoes, and these are likely to dissipate over time. So I may have a small but higher risk of infection and a small but lower risk of allergic dermatitis.

But one of my main reasons for favoring used clothing, aside from price, is the very fact that it is used. Treading lightly on the world requires reducing consumption of resources. Reusing clothing rather than buying new ensures that the clothing is fully used before it is discarded. Reusing shoes specifically reduces the demand for leather. Leather production is very toxic to the environment. It is such useful stuff that we put up with it, but throwing away shoes that are otherwise wearable because the first owner no longer needs them seems too wasteful for me to want to do that. It is similar to why I would not buy a new car. I realize there are people who love new cars, replace their cars frequently and enjoy the newness. I maintain them, and keep cars until it ceases to be practical to keep them running. It is vastly cheaper than buying new, and it also is far gentler on the environment. Just one person's priorities

 

[dbhdnhdbh]

I would note that getting a fungal foot infection may not be a consequence of wearing used shoes. People get nail infections in their hands as well, and not apparently associated with wearing used gloves. DW may have gotten his infection from the moccasins, or not. Once infected, he may have colonized the shoes. So they might have been the cause, might have been innocent bystanders. It would have taken doing a microbial analysis of the shoes before he wore them to find out whether they were already infected with the organism that lead to his infection. Even if they were, as we have seen, these infections are very common. Unless it was some unusual organism not commonly found in his environment, there would be no way to know whether he got the infection because he wore those shoes.

 

[emptym]



True.  You will never have someone stand in your home and ask you "Do you really need a house this big in an area this nice?  Have you ever stopped to think how many others you could help if you lived in a house half this size in the dodgy end of town?"

I agree for the most point with the point that people are less likely to criticize one's home than other purchases. As I think you mentioned in another thread, you have a friend who could afford a Ferrari but prefers an Audi. Nice cars are perhaps the thing most criticized as a waste of money. Clothes may be second Homes maybe be the least commonly criticized. I wonder why this is. There are probably many reasons and I can think of a few: Homes are very durable goods that are shared with others (unless one lives alone and never entertains). Another reason has to do with, as you said, the improbability of someone standing in one's home and criticizing it. This may be due to the fact that we tend only to invite close friends to our homes (with the exception perhaps of large parties), and close friends tend to share our values and means. Cars and clothes are much more visible to acquaintances.

However, ime at least, there certainly are many people who criticize others for buying homes based on size, location, and other things (doormen, gates, etc.). For example, there's a fairly strong movement to get people to downsize their homes largely due to environmental reasons. And I know many people who choose on purpose to live in neighborhoods that are considered impoverished and even crime-ridden. Many are hipsters who have an interesting notion about authenticity. But many too prefer simply to live among the people they serve.

Off topic: I'd like to know how one justifies spending 500 bucks on RTW pants. I mean WTF...

On topic: Shoes are my hobby. I love cool shoes. Guns are also my hobby and I love cool guns. They cost a hell of a lot more though. If I played hockey even a tad bit more seriously, I'd end up spending around 200-300 bucks a month just on sticks and sharpening my skates + what it costs to pay for the ice time.

So there really isn't any good means to justify the money spent when we're talking about hobbies. Everyone has a hobby/hobbies and depending on one's income, an x amount of money is spent on it/them. Usually what a person spends on a hobby is in no way consistent with one's use of money in general.

Yes, shoes can last decades while pants tend not to. Good pt too about hobbies. I'm tempted to say "all people" spend an arguably excessive amount on some hobby. But due to the realities of global poverty, I know I shouldn't. It may be safe to say that most Americans do. I've certainly found that those who look askance at one person's spending habits often spend a lot of money on something else: alcohol, eating out, music collections, tickets for sporting events or concerts, travel, golf, skiing, home theaters, boats, off-road vehicles, a classic car, etc.

But I will cheerfully agree that the risk of getting a foot infection from used shoes is almost certainly higher than zero. I am willing to take that chance. It seems small to me. And people can also have reactions to the substances used to make shoes, and these are likely to dissipate over time. So I may have a small but higher risk of infection and a small but lower risk of allergic dermatitis. 

But one of my main reasons for favoring used clothing, aside from price, is the very fact that it is used. Treading lightly on the world requires reducing consumption of resources. Reusing clothing rather than buying new ensures that the clothing is fully used before it is discarded. Reusing shoes specifically reduces the demand for leather. Leather production is very toxic to the environment. It is such useful stuff that we put up with it, but throwing away shoes that are otherwise wearable because the first owner no longer needs them seems too wasteful for me to want to do that. It is similar to why I would not buy a new car. I realize there are people who love new cars, replace their cars frequently and enjoy the newness. I maintain them, and keep cars until it ceases to be practical to keep them running. It is vastly cheaper than buying new, and it also is far gentler on the environment. Just one person's priorities

I'm with you completely on the environmental benefits of used things. Consuming fewer things is best, then used things, then taking good care of new things so they'll last. Reselling or donating things we don't use is also definitely better than throwing them away, which is done all too often.

But I'm not sure what the value is of those studies you posted. None of them studied used leather dress shoes, did they? As so often is said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

So I'm also not sure of the value of continuing this debate. Both sides acknowledge that infections can be passed on through used shoes. One thinks it's worth the risk and the doesn't. I'm not sure what more can be said.

 

[konda]

Yes, shoes can last decades while pants tend not to. Good pt too about hobbies. I'm tempted to say "all people" spend an arguably excessive amount on some hobby. But due to the realities of global poverty, I know I shouldn't. It may be safe to say that most Americans do. I've certainly found that those who look askance at one person's spending habits often spend a lot of money on something else: alcohol, eating out, music collections, tickets for sporting events or concerts, travel, golf, skiing, home theaters, boats, off-road vehicles, a classic car, etc.

QFT, QFT. I feel that considering the forum we are writing to, we can generalize "all people". Excellent point about golf

 

[red81]

i justify my purchases (in my own mind) in this way:
- most people i see spend $10-$12 a day on morning coffee and lunch
- i make my own lunch (1.99 for coffee i can splurge on)
- i eat healthier, save about $8 a day, which just about "justifies" me a new pair of nice shoes every 1-2 months (i don't buy near that many, but i "can")
- someone mentioned retirement goals, i also "justify" a new pair for every savings goal met, say....$5000 saved at 6% annual returns gives me $300 of "free money" to spend (once again, i don't do this either, but i don't feel anywhere near as bad when i do it this way, as i do have a family to take care of).

so yes, i could buy and wear $60 shoes like most others, but i choose not to, as i choose to buy them as a reward to myself.

source: owner of 2 pairs of allen edmonds and 3 pairs of red wings (nowhere near $500+ but still more "stupidly expensive" than most people would spend on).

 

[DWFII]



But I'm not sure what the value is of those studies you posted. None of them studied used leather dress shoes, did they? As so often is said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

So I'm also not sure of the value of continuing this debate. Both sides acknowledge that infections can be passed on through used shoes. One thinks it's worth the risk and the doesn't. I'm not sure what more can be said.

I'm not sure of the value of these studies either.

In the first place, it is just too easy to search the Internet and select what you want to believe or present--redacting those studies that don't reinforce your own point. Fact is, for any given topic anyone can probably find a whole slew of studies that purport to prove a thesis one way or the other--both sides, IOW.

But the person posting those studies doesn't have to be responsible...or answer...for their accuracy or fidelity. It's just too convenient. It's a cheap shot, in many ways. More to the point, many, perhaps most, of these studies are either misleading, inaccurate, beside-the-point or just plain self-serving. The Internet itself doesn't have to be responsible.

And inevitably the only reason one study is embraced as truth while another is dismissed, comes down to nothing more "scientific" or empirical than that it fits our own preconceptions.

Thing is, I've spent 40+ years studying these issues. To the extent that my advice is worth anything...or that I am indeed an "expert"...it is because I've studied shoemaking, and leather, and feet--in real world situations. I've never said that my word was writ in stone but it comes "straight from the bench," as we say in the Trade, not the imagination. And I am responsible. And answerable.

And when, as is all too often the case, such discussions devolve into the proposition that cause and effect doesn't really apply...or only as it suits us, for the purposes of making our point, in any particular instance...a certain degree of silliness if not pettiness seems to come to the fore.

It matters not whether buying and wearing used shoes is a risk worth taking...the salient fact is that to decide whether it is worth taking, one has to acknowledge the risk to begin with. This is true of all situations in life. As my favourite author--James Lee Burke--said in one of his books...at the most fundamental level, "Ignorance carries its own death penalty."

--

 

[Cleav]



This is really out of curiosity for the people that frequently purchase shoes in the range of $500+

Personally for me, I would only buy them if I see myself wearing them as staple items (probably wearing them at least 1x a week or at the very least 1.5x in two weeks.

For shoes that are a bit playful, flamboyant or whatever, I don't think it's necessary to buy this type in quality form since it will hardly be worn aside from a few occasions...

Not to start a perpetual flame war or anything, but I find shoes such as the Strand to be in the category of "hardly worn", at least for me, while dark brown captoes and burgundy wingtips dominate my weekly wardrobe.

So for shoes with scotchgrain or python material, how often do people really wear these footwear to justify the expense?

Justify to whom?  I buy them, I wear them, I enjoy them.  I like the way they look and I like the way they feel. They aren't placed on a pedestal and kept in pristine condition - but they are well cared for.  Some are worn more than others, but all get worn.  I don't feel I need any further justification beyond that.

For cordovan, definitely worth it. They'll last you forever and a half. They might even save you money in the long run.

How to Justify $500+ Shoes Based on SF Post Count

1 - 1,000 posts -- "You're buying quality footwear. It's an investment and the shoes will last for way longer!"

1,001 - 2,000 posts -- "I'm supporting traditional, artisan manufacturing processes and investing in quality while taking a stance against disposable fashion!"

2,001 - 3,000 posts -- "Well I haven't bought a pair of shoes that retailed for less than $500 in over a year, so..."

3,001 - 4,000 posts -- "I like nice things so I buy nice things. Justification is a coping mechanism that suggests you have no business buying expensive shoes."

I'll let you know how that scale progresses once I break 4,000 posts.

Glib answer - because they're better (on the whole)

Glib answer 2 - because some people can

This need not be about footwear, good, bad or indifferent…

How do you justify spending $XXXXXXX on a wristwatch

" $ XXXX Tie

" $XXXXXXX Car

etc, etc

Work hard, play hard and take your pleasure where you see fit.

This

 

[dapperdoctor]

Do the health care professionals get continuing education credits for reading this thread?

 

[gaseousclay]

To answer the OP's question, for me the dollar value attached to a pair of shoes is relative to what qualities I look for in a dress shoe. For example, there is value in aesthetics, materials & craftsmanship. Would I pay $500 or even $1000 for dress shoes? You bet, especially if it was a style of shoe specific to a brand.

With that said, there is the law of diminishing returns on high end dress shoes IMO. Am I getting more shoe if I buy the St Crispin austerity brogues over the EG austerity brogues? Some would say yes but others would say no. When looking at the big picture there are very few men who give a toss about what brand of shoes you're wearing or how much you paid for them.

 

[dbhdnhdbh]

Quote: Well, it depends on how you defined "studied". They sought risk factors for foot infections and did not identify the shoes themselves as factors. That would include leather dress shoes. In the study that investigated whether "gummed shoes" were a risk factor, the alternative apparently were shoes that were not gummed. But they did not specify exactly what these might have been. Of course, they also did not find the shoes to be a risk factor.

Quote: Absolutely true. But in the absence of evidence that used shoes cause foot infections, what is the basis for someone being certain that they do?

If there were lots of evidence for this notion, then there would be nothing to debate. One could simply cite the data and that would put an end to the discussion. It is easy to find evidence that, for example, diabetics have lots of foot infections. That athletes get tinea pedis, That antifungals work against the organisms that cause these infections. One need not rely on "somewhere on the internet" for these facts. However, I search and I cannot find this evidence for used shoes as a cause of foot infections. I ask for anyone else who knows of such evidence to provide the citations. So far, no one has. Not even the people who appear convinced that this risk is real.

So with so little evidence it seems reasonable to conclude no one knows, but there is no evidence for it. It does not seem reasonable to conclude that it must be true.

Quote: One can try to get a more precise estimate of the risk

Quote: That would be the case if we were looking for any claim to be found on the internet. I am looking for scientific studies published in the peer-reviewed literature. If I had found some support for the idea I would have posted it. After all, I am interested in the answer. More to the point, PubMed is free. Anyone can search it. Someone who is sure that used shoes pose a risk must already know of the studies that support this idea. Otherwise, what would be the basis for the certainty?

If anyone knows of other studies, please post the citations. If someone already "knows" of the risk of used shoes, please post the citations for the evidence supporting that conclusion.

In science it is simply not true that one can find a whole slew of studies that purport to prove any arbitrary thesis. There is no cold fusion. The earth is not flat. One can find opinions about anything on the internet, but the peer-reviewed literature is a different source.

 

[dbhdnhdbh]

Quote: I posted the studies so anyone on this thread can read them and make up their own mind. I did not conduct the studies, so I could not be responsible for their accuracy. But is there any evidence in favor of the proposed risk?

Quote: Please explain the flaws in the studies cited in this thread. What about them is misleading? What is inaccurate? What is self-serving? Who would be the "self" that such studies could serve? I think I addressed why the diabetic foot is on point.

Hey, I am not the guy who brought up foot infection as a risk for used shoes. I just said I wear them because they are much less expensive and gentler on the environment. If there is evidence that they are dangerous, I would love to see it. I don't want to lose my feet. But so far we have assertions, no evidence. Need more than that to start spending $5,000 rather than $50 on shoes.