system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Shoes should come pre-dipped in a hydrophobic liquid

So the main argument against this I am expecting is the argument of monetary incentive.

\- It would cost money for a company to make their shoes longer-lasting (two opposing forces since people would buy fewer shoes)

However, I would be willing to buy more of a company if I knew they were longer-lasting, one of the main reasons I don't buy nice shoes is because I know they will get ruined so quickly, however, I would be willing to pay a higher price for premium shoes if they lasted longer and looked pristine for longer.

Also, the price of hydrophobic material could be greatly reduced since a lot of it is wasted in spray, if you had it in liquid form you could dip shoe after shoe with minimal wastage and also use very little simultaneously.

Also, the longer people can wear your shoes the more they will talk about how long they last and how good they are creating free advertisements.

&#x200B;

**Edit: I never said all shoes, I said there should be an option of pre dipped hydrophobic shoes, the reason for this is because any attempt with spray or anything else is imperfect and tedious.**

I have officially changed my view, thank you to everyone who contributed.
gpt
Most shoes breathe well. Leather is already easy to clean and work shoes are already water resistant. Non-work shoes that will be worn casually are meant to breath well, by adding hydrophobic coating you lose the breathability, it costs more and it isn't permanent. It also can damage the shoes faster as parts might lose it earlier than other parts it might pull the fabric off when it is falling off. 

So overall it isn't just costs, but functionality and Durability. Shoes that need to be hydrophic are usually already water resistant and easy to clean, all the rest need to breath.