I mean this is a standard story in economics, right? Something about lemon cars. If the information isn't available symmetrically, then the person selling the quality is going to lose out on the person selling the branded fake quality.
I am so sick of hearing that same old story "people don't want to pay for quality" because it's bullshit. I try to, but it's not always on offer, half the time it's just a more expensive (probably nicer-looking) version of stuff that lasts about as long.
I'm not talking about shoes. In fact I grant your point on shoes, if dress shoes were the only kind of shoes we need. Which is of course nonsense and I'd love to hear where you get for instance running shoes that last a life time.
But jeans. I've bought expensive jeans, I've bought cheap jeans. There is zero correlation how long they last. It's a gamble. In fact, because the cheap ones will occasionally surprise you with some serious longevity, the best gamble is in fact to buy the cheap jeans and see which keep best.
But unlike shoe stores there's usually nobody around who can tell you about their relative quality. Or they will tell you anything. Again, that's the lemon game. Lack of information. Not unwillingness to pay.
I am certain that many people calling out the "people don't want to pay for quality" are just trying to signal "I can afford expensive stuff" and kind of forget about the part where they can also afford to occasionally buy something expensive that is also shit, doesn't last quite as long as the premium suggests, but not feel it in your pocket and keep telling yourself you buy quality.
See I can afford $400 shoes, but I can't afford to "try" $400 shoes.