I think these things are beside the point. People are not products, and thus aren't subject to appeal through opulence. It is conceivable that one would buy a p

I think these things are beside the point. People are not products, and thus aren't subject to appeal through opulence. It is conceivable that one would buy a product simply because it is expensive in order to distinguish themselves or satisfy some arbitrary desire to have expensive things, or because they view cost as a factor in "quality." People, on the other hand, are more akin to machines in that their only value to a company is through the utility they provide, and thus money spent on hiring should be minimized so that its returned value can be maximized. The fact that expensive things are alluring doesn't work with exclusively utilitarian commodity goods, like labor. So the fact that the service is expensive won't make it any more appealing to employers. (Or, it might. I don't know what goes through the heads of recruiters. But, a rational actor in their position wouldn't draw your conclusion.) Companies are trying to maximize value, which means minimizing the cost of labor. This includes both the money they pay to their labor and the money they pay for their labor.