I like good quality long lasting things. I like my property to be no more mortal than I am. Why should I have to suffer things being inadequately made and failing on me? Why should anyone?
But if, say, 90% of people will replace the item anyway before it fails, then they haven't suffered it. This is the point I'm making - items that people are likely to keep ages still ARE made well. Think about cars - they're much, much more reliable than they used to be, esp. at the lower end of the market, and require much, much less maintenance. Why? Because people keep them for years and years and so their reliability is a major factor on purchase. So it's not as if we don't value reliability and quality in certain areas.
Also, I think the majority will buy whatever they're sold. Extending your cars example: If people are told that fast and powerful is good, then that's what they'll buy. If they're told that economical is good then that's what they'll buy. If they're told that green is good, then that's what they'll buy. And if they're told that good quality and long lasting is good then that is what they would buy.
This is a very flawed extension, since there are many different cars on the market, with each segment of the market emphasising different traits. For instance, the sports car market emphasies speed, performance & handling whereas the citycar market emphasises small size and fuel economy. And so on. So it's hardly a case where "people buy whatever they're sold" since there is a large diversity of car types you can purchase.
Of course, supply does affect demand (I think the economists would say this is a corollary of Say's Rule), but demand also affects supply. In a free market, the two interact smoothly together, to govern what is available in the marketplace. Even in our moderately unfree markets, it's difficult for a manufacturer to restrict consumer choice in the long-term through a supply bottleneck. You can do it in the short-term through various mechanisms (advertising and anti-competitive practices probably being the most obvious two), but in the long-term a number of factors kick in to stop it persisting.
One "minorty" group to think of is old people. Perhaps with naturally impaired sight and mental agility, some will really struggle to learn their way around replacement technology. It can cause a great sadness for them to repeatedly have such inconveniences, to have to struggle with new things that are completely different. Things they may rely on for happiness. The disheartening complaint I often hear from them is "it's the same with everything you buy nowadays".
If the minority is big enough, someone will enter the marketplace. There are plenty of devices specially designed for the elderly or the infirm which testify to this. In fact, it's a pretty big market.
But even leaving that aside, the core point of what I've been saying is that economy of scale and using built-in obsolence to minimise build costs allows for a reduction in unit price, thus increasing availability and accessibility of a given product.
If you WANT an object that lasts much longer or uses an outmoded technology, you CAN still have it. You will just have to pay more. Either through paying for a vintage item, or through specially commissioning the piece. It's not like you can't have it (there are exceptions if the technological knowlege to build it is completely lost, but those really are minor exceptions. It is why I can never have a newly made silk top hat though!)
I don't see why it is unfair that if you want something the majority do not value, that you should expect to pay more for it. Another example - I sometimes buy bespoke clothes. They are made to last much longer than clothes I could buy from Primark, and are of much better quality... and cost considerably more. This strikes me as eminently fair. What would be unfair would be to insist that everyone wear bespoke items made to that high standard, as the cost would be crippling for many people. It would not even achieve a presumed goal of the exercise, which would be a world that looked nicer because people were better dressed, since most people would be wearing rags, as they could not afford new items.
Like it or not, economy of scale, catering to the mass market and cutting costs to achieve the lowest unit price possible and the bare minimum of quality desired is what has actually driven UP the quality of life for most people.
Unless you postulate a world where there this an unrelated way to drive down unit cost (eg. free energy through fusion thus making production costs negligible, for an obvious example), there's no other way I can think of to keep people in a reasonable standard of living and not increasingly bankrupt. If you can figure out an alternative economic model that works at less cost, please do let the Treasury know - I could do with a tax cut!
I'll give you another example, Electric can openers are a joke. The blades wear out before anything else and they don't sell replacement blades, forcing you to buy an entirely new one. And I guarantee they haven't made any great strides in electric can opener technology in the meantime.
I'll give you that one.
Though I take it you wouldn't buy another electric can opener anymore? So the principle holds. And if you do, it will be because the unit cost is so low, that you don't care about its built-in obsolesence.
