The expenses (both time and money) have been shared. They're now "known." You can make a value judgment, an opinion, on whether that is actually "expensive" or "time consuming" but you can't just "reject" that it costs cost money and time.
It's a very simple thing, really: if places thought it would improve their bottom line, or if they thought it was an important thing to affect the "feel" of their course, they'd do it.
Most courses don't seem to feel the value is worth the cost.
Most golfers, it seems, don't even really seem to notice.
You can feel differently than the majority of the players or the ownership of various courses, but you can't "reject" the facts.
I'd like it, too, if courses could do this.
But I understand why they don't, and it has never and will almost surely never be in my top 50 reasons why I play or don't play at a particular course.
He didn't assume that. He's simply saying that at the PGA Tour level, when averaging as little as 3' difference in your proximity to the hole shifts you 100 places on the ranking… that details matter and getting the right wind, the right yardage, etc. take a little more time than a guy who thinks he hits his 7-iron 155 but who usually hits it 140 the few times he actually hits it solid.
Now, they can certainly speed up… and do some of those calculations while the others in the group are playing among other things, but… @klineka wasn't arguing that they be granted five minutes, either. We had a fit over JB Holmes taking 4:30, after all, on the last hole of a tournament, to lay up.
I don't think you're going to win that one. They shouldn't care as much, no, absolutely not. It'd be ridiculous to care as much as they should/do.