To counter your narrative, which I think contributes to the discussion, I believe that you are overvaluing the position of the workers who had higher salaries during the "good years."
Their salaries were higher but so were their costs. When you were working during a recession, you had opportunities to invest in equities and real estate that were multiples lower in cost than in more prosperous years. Ironically, your uninformed and unwise choice to avoid equity markets in exchange for security is a great example of the shortsightedness you accuse of the 40s and 50s generation! Essentially most people are missing something and shouldn't be harshly blamed for missing it. I'm not being critical of your choice so much as using it as an example.
> I've grown up in a US workforce where staying in the same job for more than 2 years is essentially taking a pay-cut
You seem to ascribe a moral value toward a career tactic. There are plenty of rational reasons to frequently change jobs and plenty of rational reasons to remain in one. The "well I had to change jobs frequently" sounds a lot like "when I was your age I had to go to the library to look up information." You can see the false comparison in the latter, what about the former?
> wish them all the best of luck packing up ... and moving to a place they can afford
I think this is a pretty myopic statement. Most people can relocate without severe emotional stress only in their 20s or in their 60s-70s. Otherwise they are tearing their families' social bonds. Maybe you relocated as a child and were fine. The evidence points to children moving outside of their school district being highly correlated with negative outcomes (criminality, adverse academic performance, mental health issues).
Absolutely the people in this situation should retrain to more in-demand skill sets. But a moral component shouldn't be added. Most of their contemporaries haven't had to retrain so it isn't as obvious as you think.