[Prudence]

There's also an assumption here that those in charge of hiring decisions care about the long-term cost/benefit to the company. In my experience that isn't the case.

The last time I worked for a company during layoffs, the financial wizards literally picked the 4 employees earning the highest salaries because it would have the biggest immediate effect on the bottom line and therefore benefit the financial wizards in the short term. I've been on hiring committees where the most qualified candidate, who would have been a tremendous asset, was rejected in favor of someone who would do a so-so job, but cost a lot less. Heck, in the past few months I've listened to my boss tell me how lucky they are to have someone as skilled as yours truly doing what I do for the salary they pay me.

It's my experience that price trumps quality most of the time. Some might call it the Walmart effect. The benefit to the bottom line can be admired on a spreadsheet right away, while the detrimental effects of lesser skill can take longer to manifest. (And many managers figure that by that time they'll have advanced out of the responsibility zone.)