While I can see the point you make (and agree that it would indeed apply to a substantial proportion of owners), there is another angle. Those of us from a scientific/technical background tend to appreciate something nicely made and finished, something that, in a way, really shouldn't work as well as it should. I personally have always had a weakness for nicely-machined metal, and that even extends to the analytical equipment in the labs I sometimes frequent, and of couurse the watchmakers far surpass that. I personally would like to own a perpetual calendar, simply because I find it an astonising bit of mechanical wizardry (the prospect of having to sell an organ or two to finance it is what puts me off). So, even though a Lange or a Patek Philippe will forever be out of my reach, I enjoy the fact that such things exist and are sold, and that there are people who both can afford them and appreciate them for the mechanical marvels that they are.
With regard to "Rolex Sub or JLC", you know that the Rolex will take the beating, and that most JLCs won't. I bought my GMT-Master in 1975 (cost a whole 900 Swiss francs!), and it got regularly abused, and it took it all (apart from the plastic crystal, which tended to scratch). Ever since I found out how much the thing is now worth, when I am working on something (apart from writing boring patents), I swap it for a Citizen Nighthawk.