@Mike – I hope that people don’t to hung up on the exact example, since it was simply meant to be a simple clear illustration of the ‘Cost Per’ calculation rather than a perfect example. With that said, I think it is a great point to think about investing the difference. We would also need to factor in taxes and inflation too which probably negates a lot of the gains, but it is definitely worth thinking about.

If you move all the time, cost-per calculations for furniture probably aren’t the best decision-making mechanism. Essential factors would instead be resale value (what is the likelihood you get anyone to pay near the cost of the expensive bedroom set when they’re buying used?), weight, and ease of (de)construction/transport.

Also, a lot of cheap items last for decades too, and the most frugal among us find novel uses for “retired” items that decreases their cost-per ratio. Sadly, a brand-name is no longer a guarantee that a product will last for a certain amount of time — we call that a warranty, and you’ll notice very few products — even brand names — guarantee more than ONE YEAR anymore.

Once again, if your life is more temporary than the one implied here (meaning both that there are an uncertain number of years/uses to divide by and that you will likely part with the item before the end of its life), you are unlikely to recoup the investment in a more expensive item.

It seems to me the moral of the story here is buy used, inherit unwanted items from others, or freecycle. This results in the lowest cost-per ratio of all!