Someone got me started on 'planned obsolescence'

I read an article about the tricks and traps of our digital age, which drifted around from planned obsolescence to tricky marketing. A comment spurred me to deconstruct the idea that planned obsolesence is "good" because it "creates jobs":

Planned obsolescence has a few flaws. With material goods it creates physical waste, up to now a hidden cost that we *all* have paid (usually by government subsidy). As externalities like waste are factored in (by for example pricing carbon emissions) the real cost of obsolescence is revealed and it doesn't look so good. Secondly, whilst obsolescence is thought to be a great idea to ensure that someone comes back for 'another one', it only works in monopoly markets or close thereto, or where loyalty or some other sticking force (like a low cost shaver and high-cost replacement blades) glues the buyer to the brand. If the market is truly "free" they only come back if they are satisfied with the first one. As soon as a competitor makes a longer-lasting, better or more serviceable product the short-lived-by-design product will fall from favour. Basically planned obsolescence relies on imperfect markets, government subsidy, marketing tricks, and/or inefficiency to actually work. If that's what you want, fine, but what about the free market, efficiency and innovation? What if we deny ourselves the better product and pay through the nose for the privilege of getting the lesser device? Is that actually generating jobs for us, or setting us up for a later catastrophic economic failure?

Oops, it may have just happened!