I don't think this claim holds outside of technical jobs at big tech and big-tech-aspirers.
I think you're trying to say that jobs with godawful applications/hiring processes acquire this disease for human reasons? If so, we agree. I'd sum it up as decadence.
SMBs, inclusive of the "earlier" stage startups that are a big source of employment for the people who frequent this site, can't afford the decadence.
I was curious about what pond they were fishing in, because that representation of an average experience is totally alien to me. As for which pond "most" people on this site should aspire to fish in (on which I made no claim), ymmv. Just collecting data.
If you're understaffed and can't meet goals it's because you're understaffed and it's the business's fault. If you have enough people and can't meet goals it's because you're messing up and it's your fault. If you hire someone and don't get 'enough output' from them then you made a bad call and it's your fault. It's damn near incentivized to slow-roll hiring and agonize over the choices instead of getting people in the door and working on your tasks.
The vast, vast majority of jobs have godawful applications and hiring process for entirely human, rather than technical, reasons (before anyone at a startup chimes in with 'our platform makes this better!')