It might if there was an actual reliable correlation between the price of a product and its longevity. But many times the shittiest products will slap on some marketing materials about it being extra heavy duty or something, or design it to appear like a more reliable competing product, but charge more for it. I buy the cheapest parts not because I want the cheapest parts, but because spending an extra 20% on the price often results in the exact same part with zero extra value.

People have typical shelled out significant more money for Miele washing machines because they were known to last typically up to somewhere between 1 and 2 decades and be repairable.

People pay a lot extra for Toyota.

I don't want to pay extra for my pants to last at least a full year (think 100 days use, 30 wash cycles), or for my electronics to last at least five years since I am old enough to remember that this used to be absolutely normal and the way things used to be.

Also paying extra does not in any way mean you will get any better quality these days. It is indeed a market for lemons.

And part of this is because it's very difficult for consumers to measure this, especially as even the best brands experience enshitification. Sears' Craftsman tools famously had a lifetime warranty, but capitalism eventually did its thing and outsourced their manufacture and removed the lifetime warranty, hoping to leverage years of good will for a short term gain.