That's backwards. Least expensive tires with most aggressive tread, ride the worst, and need replaced more often because the rubber breaks or wears down faster, not because the more expensive ones would have degraded as much over same period of time because they generally don't. At the same time I do think it's a false economy to buy very expensive tires to bank on an ~80K mi life expectation if it would take over 6 yrs to get there, but it's also a false economy to buy cheap tires that are worse by year 3 than average tires would be at year 5. Remember, the cheap tires start out worse new so by the time you break even you'd have had better value out of median grade tires... kinda the same thing as any purchase decision for long term use, low vs high vs sane middle ground products.I treat my wiper blades with the same approach as I use for my tires; the newer the rubber, the better the performance. I buy the cheap Michelin blades sold at Walmart for about $6 each and they wipe perfectly for about 6 months, then I replace them. They would probably go longer, but for $6 a piece, why mess around with the clarity of my vision while driving.? When I buy tires I buy the least expensive tires I can find with the most aggressive tread. They are usually 40K mile rated. Sure I could spend more on 80K mile rated tires, but I'd rather replace my tires with new ones at 40K miles than drive that amount of time putting the last 40K on a set of 80K mile tires. Tires ride better when new, get better traction, and have less road noise. Rubber gets harder as it ages, so the newer the tires, the better...same with wiper blades...
It's not the same with wiper blades because they tend to work equally well for me until a noticable degradation towards end of life whether that be smearing, skipping, or tearing. It's not messing with clarity of vision at all to use a wiper until it needs changed. Pretty simple stuff that people have done successfully for decades.