To put this in a different light - people (here among all places) are especially sick of firms like Accenture/IBM/etc. of loading up projects with unexperienced junior people and putting absurd markup on their services. Which one do people want? Paying for soccer teams full of inexperienced people learning on the job or promising inexperienced person experience and exposure as compensation for their services?
For the record - I'm speaking about this from the perspective of market dynamics, not regulations/morality. I personally think a co like Netflix is in the wrong here.
If someone is less good, pay them less, but still a living wage. If they're not worth that much, and you don't want to train them to be worth that much, then don't hire them.
But that's all assuming the price of a contract is roughly proportional to the cost to implement it. Any "absurd markup" is a totally different issue.
Are people sick of the inexperienced teams, or are they sick of being scammed? IIRC, that business model usually starts with a bait-and-switch - they company will send their best people first, to make an impression and get the client to sign the contract, and then switch the project over to the cheapest team.
After escalations, they finally noticed client got angry and suddenly there was someone skilled at the other end. But I suspect it was exception and only for a short time.
I.e. economic shrewdness is not equivalent to morality.