Surely it would be preferable to retrain our home-grown talent each time the hot skill changes or, better still, get real about the difference between fundamental and transient skills. The law offers high-status career paths with good income that usually increases with age. Programmers are seen as trade and their job prospects, let alone their income, often decline with age. Of course, good programmers escape into management, which is always a loss for programming and is often a loss for management. The obsession with 'team players' should be challenged.
Team players are good for playing well-rehearsed games, where the rules are already determined.
The manager's responsibility is to provide a working environment in which creative individuals can flourish, not to dumb-down job descriptions to achieve uniform mediocrity for ease of management. Shortages of the skills 'needed' to use such tools are inevitable and much money is made out of resourcing, training and certification. Raw creativity is not our primary problem. Such choices would help attract and retain women and older workers, as well as cutting out unnecessary commuting and flattening the rush-hour peak. Yet the politics of envy has gifted us IR35, which imposes an exit pressure on extant contractors and dissuades new entrants just when the e-conomy needs them most.