The single largest source of credit card fraud losses is card cloning either via skimming, or database compromise. Chips will prevent that. The PIN as you mention only stops stolen card fraud which by comparison is a tiny amount of losses and is generally detected quickly. Shutting down a stolen card is easy.
Banks probably did the math and figured that customer support issues and infrastructure for PINs were not worth it, so they'd rather continue to eat the losses on it.
The chip protects from the biggest source of credit card fraud, card cloning. The pin only additionally protects from stolen card fraud which is by comparison a tiny amount of losses.
Calling it little security is hugely inaccurate.
You laugh, but David Mitchell made a point on one of his soap box youtubes about durable goods on a subscription model might yield better quality than the model we have now. The exact example he used was a table I think (or possible a chair, either way link below).
I had heard this claim as well. I remember being stated roughly as "If 10% of cars were automated, improvements would be seen." so I decided to do some Google-Fu, I came up with a few articles quoting the linked study on that figure.
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.