I "the posting++" since it is thoughtful and questioning of status-quo's (statii-quo?? ;-). However my response is somewhat contrary to the conclusion that

In formal axiological term, it's a systematic devaluation of a human being (intrinsic value).

insofar as I must state that I don't recognize that there's a "system" at work here as most people would define it.

Nearly all known human societies, and certainly all technologically active ones, operate on the basis of the principle of organizing people into subunits and specialized functions. In turn this organization automatically rests on the principle of heirarchical structure. Our innate human psychological disposition towards seeking understanding of hierarchical patterns in the social matrix around us in any given scenario is either amplified or attentuated by cultural norms prevailing in the society where we are raised.

The contention or assumption that there's an innate or instinctive human tendency towards hierarchical understanding can be tested against the body of scientific theory and data accumulated in the life sciences where study of our close relations amongst the great apes shows how very much the primate brain is evolved to grasp hierarchy and seek to improve its owners status within a hierarchy.

If suit jackets and ties were less physically uncomfortable to some people, they would probably not count for so much in the general, average psychosocial evaluation of rank in organizational heirarchies. That mildly ironic factor aside, it's a human truth known for as far back as we can look in human history, that humans have used elements of physical appearance (dress, ornamentation, cosmetics) to signify special ranks and roles. Even more so, age has always been a primary determining factor in the evaluation of rank and status in hierarchies.

The primary importance placed on age in assigning or evaluating hierarchical status isn't completely arbitrary or irrational, either. It's a sensible adaptation and it's hardly limited to Homo sapiens (e.g., the leader of an elephant herd is usually the oldest female individual, or one of the oldest).

All this common knowledge and common-sense is being cited in order to explain why I find it problematical to assess the phenomena you've described as being "systematic devaluation". The "system" here, if there is any, is simply human nature itself, as either amplified or attenuated by cultural styles (societies in the Chinese Ideogram Sphere being amongst the most hierarchically-inclined to be found in modern times I will note with some reference to the o.p.'s given name). What is instrumental in bringing this universal human experience into sharper focus for us hackers is that actually our field is highly abberrant, in fact upside-down relative to the historical norms, in that, as the o.p. has observed, the most technically savvy and therefore "authoritative" individuals at a tech company or department may often be the youngest and least formally-attired in the group. We who are familiar and well-acquainted by direct experience with this vocational culture expect and understand this, but it in fact deviates from historical norms and so may cause confusion and even great consternation amongst those without that familiarity (the "Clooless Masses", or perhaps I should call them "Muggles" ;-P ?).

Since this theme is in fact one of the Big Issues of human life, as is often the case with such material, it is sometimes best explicated and explored by literature rather than by dry analytical rhetoric. I know of a profound work of speculative fiction ("sci-fi") that has to be one of the greatest ever written in contemplation of the stratification of human societies: The Dispossessed (author Ursula K. LeGuin). I highly recommend that all readers who find such questions as might be raised by this thread -- like: "What would a human society without hierarchy be like?" -- intriguing or troubling, to find and read (or re-read) this work of tremendous insight.

Regards,
   Soren Andersen