All of that rings true to me, but I think there's a corollary that if you're willing to pay people in accordance with the value of their depth of experience, and you can evaluate expertise without being biased by enthusiasm, and you can build a stable team that executes on a plan instead of requiring tons of overtime to scramble from emergency to emergency, and if you value choosing the right technologies for a problem over following trends, and if you don't have a toxic culture, then there is a treasure trove of people out there with experience and expertise, who you have less competition to hire.
Definitely -- but while most places don't actually suffer from all those things at once, a lot of them do worry about most of them, and will bring them up if they're out of criteria based on which to differentiate candidates.
I've seen places where availability for sudden overtime was a big deal, even though it was rarely needed. The reasons were completely stupid but it was a big deal and it played a big role in deciding hires. The projects were well-executed and deadlines were rarely missed, but management quirks meant that every team lead and manager was afraid of not being able to cope with crunch.
Also, a lot of these problems aren't "global" -- a company may actually run into all of them, but not everywhere and not with the same people. Companies that do value choosing the right technologies over following trends will nonetheless have one or two people who would like to be more bold. They may generally aim for building stable teams that executes on a plan and delivers things on time, but they nonetheless won't be devoid of newly-hired managers who don't have experience running things like that, or who might be willing to compromise on this side of things for a volatile, but high-potential project. Even toxicity can be surprisingly well isolated.
