I think the problem first mentioned here relates to the schools who try to guarentee a qualification at a minimum price. This often means a minimum standard as well. My airline employs 200 hour cadets and puts them on widebodies. But these cadets are employed by the company from the onset, they go to one of the best schools in the world, their progress is monitored by the airline throughout the course and when they arrive back in the home country to start flying, they get extra sim training and are not out on line unless everyone is satisfied they are up to the required standard. And several do fall by the wayside if they aren't.
Contrast this to an individual who gets their ATPL at he cheapest school, scrapes through their ratings, pays for their own type rating and gets employed by an operator who wants pilots at the lowest cost, pays poorly and doesn't expect their pilots to hang around after they have accumulated enough experience to on to a better job.
The industry is it's own worse enemy in this respect. The lower airlines cut ticket prices to be competative and the net result is they have to employ the lowest common denominator, the pilot who just makes the minimum standards. The regulators have a part to play in this. They set standards which are a minimum requirement, but as in Flight Time Limitations, these become the target and little is done about it.
The manifestation of this problem is the airlines who allow pay for ratings and line training pilots fly their aircraft on revenue flights. Recently, one British registered A320 was very badly damaged by one of these pilots - with fare paying passengers on board. This guy wasn't the sharpest tool in the box, but the airline still allowed him to fly thier aircraft even though they probably wouldn't have employed him based on his experience and prior performance.