Yes, because a good amount of the cost of that pro level tool is R&D and support for its use by pros. By using it once and shelving it you've paid for more engineering than you need. Case in point, when I needed to drill two holes in concrete block I opted for the cheapest $20 aliexpress carbide hole saw I could find rather than the professional diamond tipped version costing hundreds. In the unlikely event that I'll need to do the same job again I could easily bang out a few more cuts with what I have or order another cheap one and still be ahead.

I think this thread is conflating wasted money with wasted materials. Buying a nice tool once and underutilizing it wastes money. Buying cheap tools multiple times wastes materials.

That underused professional tool is as much a waste as the underused cheap one, maybe more considering the upgrade in materials. And between cost and materials, it's obvious which is the most on the mind of the consumer. The aliexpress tool is already rusting sitting on the shelf and I don't care. If I had followed "the mantra" and spent hundreds I'd feel like a sucker each time I opened my tool box.

and energy. and creates waste.

Nice tools are nice because they use more resources.

A Milwaukee drill is physically heavier than a Ryobi of the same size - purely because of all of the upgraded components to make it more durable/longer-lasting.

But if you are only touching 5% of the expected lifespan of your tool, no need to have one that's over-engineered.

Well, you are ignoring several things:

1. is the milwaukee doubly-engineered compared to the ryobi? because if you end up with 2 ryobis, that's twice the material/energy input of the one milwaukee

2. you seem to be ignoring the possibility that the milwaukee is "so" over-engineered that you pass it on to someone else, greatly extending its effective lifetime.

Again, from personal experience I have yet to ever get rid of a tool because it failed on me. The only reason I have ever lost a tool was through theft, the battery/charger/replaceable component was no longer supported, or the tool was too unsafe to use.

If I was a professional or ran a tool rental business I would 100% agree. But I wouldn't buy a pickup track no matter how durable if all I need it to do is grab groceries. It's better to get a tool engineered for the level of work expected.

for the typical level of work expected, or (as most Americans do with their vehicles) the "max" level of work expected?

There are plumbing tools I will never buy because I'm not a professional plumber. But you can be sure that the plumbing tools that I do own are top of the line for the tasks that they can accomplish.

What is the difference between "too unsafe to use" and "failed on me"?

Well, the one I am thinking of is an old-school all-metal belt sander that my grandfather gave to me.

The thing is an heirloom and may very well last forever, but basically has an unacceptable lack of modern safety features at this point. No trips, no guards, horrible ergonomics, weighs a ton, and has no grounding (keep in mind it's all metal). It also takes non-standard belts and I may or may not have cut my hand open twice just trying to change them.

So while I can understand the appeal of buying a tool that lasts forever, what are the odds you will actually want to use it forever?

Power tools: yes.

Non-power tools: not so much. My grandfather-in-law's thread cutters and pipe wrenches are every bit at the level of whatever I could buy today.

Ha, good example. I thought you meant unsafe from wearing out.

I second this question.

If nothing else, there are various kinds of wastefulness: money, pollution during manufacture / delivery, landfill, opportunity costs, etc.