Even if there is no such effect, the relevant comparison is not between the cost of the plane and the value of the pilot, but between the cost of adding the ejector seat (including, of course, the effective cost of having the plane be heavier and have more moving parts) and the value of the pilot.

If you have a $100bn device that occasionally kills its users and can halve the risk by spending $1, then the fact that the device costs $100bn has nothing whatever to do with whether you should spend that $1.

I would also point out that pilots themselves are insanely expensive. Quite aside from the basics like salary and subsidization, his education (often up to a master's degree in physics or a related field), a top of the line fighter pilot has had years, if not decades of flying experience, most of which was only to train him, and every year of that costs millions for support services. You've heard that a regular grunt costs hundreds of thousands or millions for every year overseas? Imagine how much it costs when that grunt is a B-2 or F-18 pilot!

That pilots costs so much is one of the major factors behind the recent success of drones.

(Just the initial training goes into the millions; http://www.airforcetimes.com/community/opinion/airforce_editorial_pilotcuts_071217/ says >1m; even India can't train pilots for less than 4 or 500,000 USD depending on how you interpret http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/71281/LATEST%20NEWS/IAF+not+keen+on+women+fighter+pilots.html )

And maybe some pilots eject when they could try harder to save the plane instead. Has anyone checked which is correct?

Just want to point out that this should be reffering to the F-22 Raptor. The F-18 (callsign: Hornet) is significantly older and less advanced, and only costs around 30 million.