You are not worth more because you know more technologies, though it is an unfair fact on this industry that there will be one or two over-hyped stacks at any time. But back to the point, you are worth more because you have been exposed to the social dynamics patterns that repeat themselves over and over in each new development process. You don't learn that kind of stuff hacking on your bedroom and open source contribution, while valuable, can only take you so far. This is, IMHO, as far as and objective reason to hire someone experienced as you will get.

Also, there is the concept of social proof - which you may argue is a form of over-weighting experience, but that's an open ended question. If you have a track record of going to work for somebody else and achieving X, Y, Z goals there, you are perceived to be a safer choice than someone that in theory might be smarter than you, but that is lazy or otherwise unreliable, or with low communication skills, or a first class jerk. Not that you cannot hire this types if you go with someone more experienced, but from HR perspective, you are more of a "known quantity" once you have been around for a few years and built a track record for yourself.

But you also have five years more experience in designing software, organizing code, debugging, etc. All things that are largely tool agnostic.

I have five years more "professional" experience, seems to be the difference - I had verifiable coding experience on open-source projects before that that would have demonstrated those skills. I've got more confident in my judgement but I'm not at all convinced that judgement has actually improved.

Did your core languages change during each switch? What is your current stack/expertise?

I stuck to the JVM (since people seem willing to pay more if you have experience on the specific stack, and my first job happened to be Java); for the last 3-4 years I've been doing almost exclusively Scala.