Fundamentally, I think it's bad to make sweeping judgements or generalizations from one example, especially one which is incomplete. The main issue that I see is that we can't just rule out statistics here. If there's a one in a million chance that, of any given person in the United States, they will be eminently qualified for a job and still unable to find one (probably due to a series of unlikely random incidents), we should actually statistically expect about 200 people in the United States to be in this situation. This doesn't actually say whether or not the system is broken -- this statistic could be both true and, say, Pareto optimal for society.
Basically, analyzing large, complex systems (especially economic and social systems) is hard and we should try to do it with an element of formality.
Maybe. The thing is, it's very unusual these days to find someone who has actual training in acoustics. Usually firms find folks with formal training in related disciplines (mechanical engineering, electrical engineer, physics, etc) and then teach them acoustics on the job.
Whenever someone comes along with actual acoustics training and/or experience, companies are usually falling over themselves to hire the applicant since the hire can be effective from day one.
Perhaps Mr. Johnson doesn't want to do acoustics and hasn't applied for an acoustic position. Or it could be transportation problems or something logistical. But I have a hard time believing that he applied in the field and no one in the Boston area would hire him.
Basically, analyzing large, complex systems (especially economic and social systems) is hard and we should try to do it with an element of formality.