Some people think that products should be made to last as long as possible, while others think making the products cheap is more important.

The intentional short span of a product is a subject of dispute among the public.

On the other hand

, it is mentioned that

this

practice enables affordability and keeps the demand running.

This

essay will argue that short-lasting commodities do in fact benefit society. It will be presented that manufacturing goods to

last

longer will drive up costs and cause unemployment due to plummeting in sales. In order to produce everlasting goods, it is necessary to use better quality materials and sophisticated engineering procedures. These come at a cost, as they cause the retail price of the product to jump significantly.

For example

, a garments factory owner mentioned in an interview, that it costs triple to produce a pair of jeans which is ensured to

last

10 years

instead

of 5. It can be clearly seen, that the additional cost does not increase the lifespan in proportion.

This

is why average quality products with affordable costs are more beneficial to the consumers.

On the other hand

, if an item lasts longer,

then

the producers of that particular product will face consequences. The livelihood of thousands of people revolves around an industry. If the number of sales declines,

this

will put their jobs at risk.

For example

, most iPhone users upgrade their smartphones every 5 years,

in contrast

to the usual 2-3 years by customers of other brands. The dip in sales has forced Apple to lay off many factory workers, pivoting the company's focus to services

instead

.

This

is how long-lasting commodities can

also

bring harm to some people. In conclusion, it can be stated that making products with a shorter life cycle keeps the prices in check and ensures demand to grow. For

this

reason, I endorse

this

business practice, as it helps both the consumers and the suppliers.