I think that this speaks to an issue that's common across the economy, not simply isolated to tech: the career lifecycle. Specifically, the notion that there's an optimal amount of time and an optimal point in one's life (both for business and employee) for a worker to be in a given position, and that it's again optimal for him or her to not get there too early and to not stay too long.

E.g., tech suffers from the former, politics from the latter, and for both fields, the effect is a warping of the good that they could be doing for society. Society should be set up to encourage "correct" entries and exits and to discourage "incorrect" ones (with allowances, during the transition, to avoid having a "lost generation" that never gets to contribute).

Letting people hang on, with their outmoded ideas, into their 70s and 80s? Forcing breadwinners to take on maximum workplace responsibility at the same time that they are most able to contribute to raising their family or building and maintaining their community? There's something perverse about this set-up. To say nothing of the people forced to spin their wheels while the 10xers load their own plates with all the opportunities.

The first time I transitioned to a different type of job in tech was really tough but I had been pretty unhappy for a while. I wasn't pushed out--the opposite in fact--which made leaving tougher but subsequent events showed it was absolutely the right decision. The next time, my hand was pretty much forced by any clear-headed view of company financials which made it a lot easier to get on a very interesting (and better compensated) track through someone I had done some work for. At the end I wasn't especially happy but it was around the time I was planning to at least semi-retire anyway so the decision was straightforward again.