Then the "problem" should be self correcting assuming the companies which make money survive (which they do), and those which don't focus on making money evaporate (which they do). Or maybe it's not a "problem" if only some companies are doing it, because they value things which the older people don't have interest in, and so the older people self select themselves out by choice.
Is there a list of companies which value profit so the people who complain about the "problem" (from companies most likely to not be around after too long) can go work for them?
I'd check wealthy corporations by this logic, and check whether the average age of programming staff is higher than in SV.
It would certainly match up with my experience in London, where it seemed that a lot of the programmers over the age of 30 were working for large, established finance companies. The age of programmers around the 'Silicon Roundabout' startups tends to skew a lot closer to mid 20s.
It's not going to be self-correcting because - at least for startups - the VC companies providing the funds also believe that older programmers are no good, and companies aren't going to survive very well if they run out of funding. Plus, once companies get past the VC stage, this is likely to be deeply embedded in corporate culture and they'll be at the point where they're established enough that they can do worse than the competition and still succeed.
> Then the "problem" should be self correcting assuming the companies which make money survive (which they do)
This derails in reality because you'll have companies making money but bullshitting their employees to save most of it.
You don't need the best of the best programmers to have a shippable product, and even if such a company is only mildly profitable, keeping the profits at the top makes it a good place for stake holders.
Is there a list of companies which value profit so the people who complain about the "problem" (from companies most likely to not be around after too long) can go work for them?