Cheaper? How so?
This just goes to say, that a type system can be very helpful, but is ultimately just a part of regular testing.
So for most companies and most developers, anything that aides in keeping documentation up-to-date, writing or generating tests and helping developers understand what they are reading is probably a better ROI.
I was trying to note that Clojure, as a dynamic language, is making a (to my eyes) very interesting choice, of doubling down on these dynamic methods of verification. For some uses, I can see this as the better choice, for others it isn't and won't be.
In my own work, I chose Clojure because it mirrored my experiences: that type systems weren't worth the trade-offs for me and my field.
Would I prefer stronger typing in different domains (longer project times available, greater consequences of failure like medical devices, etc.)? Sure, and I have in the past. But it's not the case that dynamic languages are always the incorrect choice, like smoking cigarettes.