The difference in cost cutting and planned obsolescence seems to be semantics. If you go the cheapest route its obvious you arent planning on the product lasting and you will get to sell another to replace it.
Actually a spatula is one of my growing list of "there's no way that wasn't designed to break". Wooden-handled spatula with silicon head, the spatula handle looked like it went in to the silicon and provided a strong head. But instead the silicon was designed to look as if the wood continued in to it, but instead there was a very narrow wooden extension a couple of millimetres thick. This was an expensive branded spatula from a specialist store.
The spatula snapped at the interface of the head and handle; you could make it much stronger _and_ use less material.
It wasn't this one, https://cdn.cutleryandmore.com/products/large/35515.jpg, but same exterior appearance where the handle appears to extend in to the silicone.
Hmm, same amount of material constructed in an equally difficult manner will last decades (until the silicone degrades) or last a couple of years if the wooden handle is designed with a super narrow breakable section conveniently hidden in the head ... I'm happy if the survive long enough to need scrubbing with bleach and putting in the microwave for a minute to kill any bacteria/mold on them.
I have paid for and thrown away several cheaper skillets during my lifetime.
You tell me the difference in cheap and planned obsolescence ?
I think a good system of borrowing high end equipment within your local community would be far more environmentally friendly, but that doesn’t really fit the macho all American DIY persona very well.
Though they don't necessarily have high-end stuff; the one here has mostly middle-of-the-road items.