IMO, we live in a society that believes that you don't need to pay top dollar to receive top quality, and that anything above a certain (usually arbitrary) price point is throwing money away....
.....but in my experience, you generally get what you pay for.
I agree. And because I'm me (i.e., a person who simply can't shut up), I'll expand on this idea a little. Here's my theory of relativity - no, not that one that says E=MC2, and not the one that says "it depends on who your relatives are" - I mean that all things are relative, in that their value will depend on how essential they are to one's needs.
If all I wore was sandals, then buying a pair of socks would be throwing money away, even if they were ten cent socks.
If I made my living driving race cars, I'd want a Ferrari for the track, or something of that caliber. Because I'd want to be competitive, and I'd want to win. I doubt anyone would think that I was wasting money on a race car if I was a race car driver, or owned a racing team.
I compete with very well organized and talented music production companies from all over the world, in the highly competitive field of TV ad scoring.
Anything that gives me an edge is a good thing. At one time, that required a six figure investment at least, in hardware recording equipment. Today, everyone uses a computer, some choice outboard gear, and a nice pair of studio monitors. It's all about the writing, and often how things sound to the producers. Today maintaining an edge is more difficult - there are lots of talented people out there doing the kind of work I do, and there isn't much of an economic barrier to get into the business.
It's hard to stay inspired, and it's hard to sound better than the other guy. So what I want to pay for is something that will inspire and fire my creativity, and maybe even sound a little better. That's easier said than done; moreover, that is going to vary wildly from individual to individual.
My instruments keep my inspiration up. I'm that guy who's inspired by them to do better. My amps, my guitars, etc., are crucial. If they sound just a tiny bit better, well, then party, bonus. If they give me the confidence to play a little better, or create a better part, then they're an absolute steal of a bargain, no matter what they cost. Even if on the recorded tracks, as some folks say, "no one can really tell," well, I can tell, and that's where the inspiration part comes in.
So relative to some theoretical "hobby" person's actual needs, a guitar a company spent five or ten man-hours making is great. For a more committed player, the 22 man-hours a Core PRS makes sense. But, the additional man-hours spent on a PS might be a waste.
From my point of view, however, the additional man-hours spent on a PS result in a wonderful source of inspiration, and I'm willing to pay for those man-hours, because I need that kick in the butt. I think many folks might agree that it makes sense for a person in my business to do whatever it takes to be inspired and therefore, be more competitive in the business.
Thus, to get back to my theory of relativity, relatively speaking, the PS makes sense for me, but I can see where it might not make sense for others.
I could go on and on about our throwaway society, heck there's no such thing as a TV repairman any more because it's cheaper to go out and buy a new TV if yours breaks. That's a mindset. But we do live in a complex society where everyone not only has an opinion, everyone has an outlet for that opinion to be published on the internet.
So while I can see the point of view of people who put a price limit on what makes sense, the same people will have different priorities than I do, and might do things I think of as throwing money away on other desires, needs, investments, etc.
Priorities are relative, therefore. And it's too easy to throw stones at what other folks are wasting money on, and not realize that we all prioritize in various and very different ways.
"Kind of a long-winded rationalization, there, Les."
"Yes, but it isn't a bad one, is it?"
"Well..."