So much for the problem, what about a solution? Why not include stall recovery in basic training where the student cannot use power? ie they must lower the nose and trade height to speed.
The aircraft I first learnt to fly on had no engine, so that was what you had to do!
My honest opinion is that we are seeing the results (in a wide sense) of the continuing spread of high levels of automation, including FBW and envelope protection. Statistically, flying is becoming safer but when accidents do occur, they trend towards the "what's it doing now?!" and/or failure to intervene when the automation has become unreliable.
I don't see much in the immediate future that's going to change this. Airline pilots who fly "conventional" airframes or light aircraft outside work get much more exposure to AoA, airframe performance and feedback; those whose only real handling experience outside of initial training is five or ten minutes in the sim every six months cannot be expected to have the same level of awareness or respond quickly in the appropriate manner when the computers give up and dump the whole thing in their laps. This is not a criticism of those pilots - we haven't yet got to a Matrix-style "I know Kung-Fu" as applied to aeroplanes, so there is little or no learnt/reflex behaviour to draw on in a problem situation. You can read the manuals as often as you like but nothing prepares you for the reality like continual practice.
The statisticians have probably worked out that overall it's better to have the odd AF447 when the automation can't cope than to rely on humans for the rest of the time...