There is a hidden cost to owning "lifetime" stuff- you have to keep track of it, maintain it, and ensure it doesn't get damaged or stolen. sure, having a nice tool is nice, but it is also /more work/ for as long as I keep it. The $150 'paladin tools' brand cable tracer? it's pretty nice, but I've got to spend effort keeping track of it. I've ended up buying a bunch generic of $5 'continuity testers' and leaving one at each data center and one in my car. the nicer tool doesn't do me any good if it's across town. Also, if I drop something heavy on one of these or if someone steals it? who cares.
I mean, sometimes you need the quality part to do the job, and sometimes maintaining quality tools can even be a pleasurable experience, but recognize that there is a cost to owning stuff you can't just walk away from.
This. The peace of mind that comes with owning disposable or easily replaceable stuff is priceless. Every item I have to spend time and effort maintaining and worry about losing or damaging it is another golden ball and chain around my carefreeness.
But do you not see the externality there? Every "disposable" thing you own started life in a sweatshop and is destined for a landfill. Beyond a certain point, deliberately buying disposable instead of lifetime is just plain irresponsible.
I am thinking more of cheap consumer electronics, gadgets, etc, even clothes, that only last a year. In the case of the car, you've saved it from being disposed of by someone else, at least for a while.
My experience has been that cheaper clothing, on average, actually lasts longer than the more expensive stuff. The cheap stuff is designed for people who do physical work. even if you don't, the more durable fabric and stitching will stand up to more runs through the washing machine.
The jeans I'm wearing right now are the costco store brand; I bought a bunch during the first .com boom for $12 a pair and used them for quite some time.
My experience has been that more expensive jeans are usually made of thinner, weaker material. I bought a bunch of fairly nice calvin klein brand jeans which cost 3x as much as these jeans and they all suffered catastrophic failures within the first year or so of use. (nearly all of them, I'd go to lift something fairly heavy, I'd hear a tearing noise and feel a draft. Irritating, as I'd have to interrupt the work day to change pants. The costco brand jeans? when they fail it's usually that the knees or the seat would wear through.)
I'm just saying, expense does not correlate very well with durability. Have you ever owned a 10 year old BMW? I can tell you from experience that a 10 year old toyota is going to be more reliable.
I'm sure you can find many counterexamples; I mean, certainly a nice pair of vibram-soled leather boots is going to last longer than any athletic shoe; probably longer enough to make them cheaper over the long-term. Hell, if you want to look "professional" there are specialized work-slacks and button-down shirts made by companies like Dickies that are very durable but also fairly expensive.
But my point is that more expensive is usually not a very good heuristic for more durable, especially when dealing with fashion items.
I mean, sometimes you need the quality part to do the job, and sometimes maintaining quality tools can even be a pleasurable experience, but recognize that there is a cost to owning stuff you can't just walk away from.