The point he makes is kind of obvious, IMO. Anytime you lower the barriers to entry, less skilled persons can take part. He also seems to think of a programmers ability as relatively static in nature. People can learn, grow and get better. Low barriers to entry mean that you can have poor developers writ and release code into the wild. Eventually, these people will either dig in and learn, or whither and die on the vine. Even if they stay around, who are they really hurting? Bad code needs to be maintained or replaced so it keeps good devs employed :)
This just struck me as a curmudgeony rant akin to "Back in my day, we had to walk up hill both ways through the snow and fight mountain lions just to get to our unheated one room school house"
That said, certainly the first couple generations of developers solved some very hard problems for those of us here, and that should not be taken lightly. But we live in a great time right now, there is still much work to do and there is a pretty danged nice environment to do it in.