First you have to define what makes one bike “better” than the other. Is it something tangible; is it the price, the material, a combination of both? Maybe it is just perception.
The bike and the rider is a symbiotic pairing. Ideally, the rider drives the bike forward and the bike should be efficient enough to propel the rider at the rate he is capable of going. End of story. This efficiency and its concurrent cost is the point of contention.
All these other rationalizations about cost and such and such is just what it is…a rationalization…by regular people not getting paid to ride bikes and the amount of money they spent on their toys. It may be a shame for someone to spend a large amount of money on a hobby that they end up not liking. But you have to ask...a shame for whom? More than likely it is a shame for the person looking at the expense because he or she is not willing to spend that much or perhaps, they wish they could spend that much on their toy.
Better bikes (whatever that maybe) do matter ONLY to the person’s perception and the one making the rationalization.
Now put the seller and peer pressure into that equation and you have a different ballgame. Perceptions can be influenced.