I think that's part of the argument for this, yes–a company that doesn't provide their developers with the best tooling is hurting themselves because they're wasting their developer's time. But I'll argue that the opposite can be true as well! By using a machine that is far removed from what your customers are on, can you really test their user experience?
And, this is a personal anecdote of course, but sometimes having fast machines can paper over problems that you should really be addressing: I had a coworker once who temporarily used a fairly (~7 years) old machine to do their development work until they could get something newer to work on. During that time I noticed that they would take a while to make minor fixes after reviews. I asked them why and they told me that they would make the change and then they'd build it and it was taking dozens of minutes–it turns out that there was a creeping dependency tracking issue in the build process that nobody had bothered to address yet because it didn't seem like a huge issue on our normal machines. But fixing it certainly got his turnaround time way up, and the CI machines really liked the change too ;)
And, this is a personal anecdote of course, but sometimes having fast machines can paper over problems that you should really be addressing: I had a coworker once who temporarily used a fairly (~7 years) old machine to do their development work until they could get something newer to work on. During that time I noticed that they would take a while to make minor fixes after reviews. I asked them why and they told me that they would make the change and then they'd build it and it was taking dozens of minutes–it turns out that there was a creeping dependency tracking issue in the build process that nobody had bothered to address yet because it didn't seem like a huge issue on our normal machines. But fixing it certainly got his turnaround time way up, and the CI machines really liked the change too ;)