Usually when it comes to high ticket purchases my intent is to use it for a very long time until it becomes non-functional. As a result I usually try to maximize its lifespan through proper maintenance. It was funny though to hear from another person that purposely didn’t maintain his products where it would of course break or wear out faster. While he of course prefers just to have something more modern day faster this way he was actually saying he felt all that time and money to maintain something is probably the same amount of money to get a new one.
That’s kind of an interesting way of looking at it and I can’t necessarily say that isn’t true because in some cases it can. For example, I would imagine spending something like an extra twenty five cents a month to try and increase the lifespan of a pair of socks or whatever would probably make more sense to get a new one. For larger items like say a piece of furniture or appliance though that is where I find it a little harder to believe you would save more money that way.
Where would the balance be? I think for me my computer is a good example where it’s been over 6 years and I have still been using the same one which suits me fine at the moment. However, just today it started acting up in greater way than normal which tends to tell me that it’s almost at its end of life. While I probably won’t replace main parts at the same time I am still trying to get every mileage out of it that I can. Because like there if I had to spend say 30% of a new computer fund to fix this thing where I could put that towards a modern day compute then it makes sense as that better one will have me time which equals money too. I think the key is that you aren’t actively hoping something breaks. That is a waste of money.