Now you're begging the question. In the original anecdote, we started with something we know based on observation—that very few IKEA products end up in stores

Now you're begging the question. In the original anecdote, we started with something we know based on observation—that very few IKEA products end up in stores selling recycled goods—and are offered the conclusion that this is because they shortly end up in the landfill due to their quality. However, you've now taken that (flawed) inference and are presenting it as the starting point—as if it were an axiom, rather than the very thing that is in contention.