I'm a little confused by this comment. Are you saying it would be better for the world if companies were limited to a "smaller human-resource pool"? Does anyone besides JS devs benefit from that scenario?
Me too, but I am drawing a different conclusion. Perhaps he/she means that companies ultimately drive the market forward as it were. I mean, most people do not strictly trade time/effort for no reward. Reward can mean different things for different people, but I would tend to land on most people trade labor for money. Companies invest in tools all the time, especially internet companies. They would have the bigger reason to get behind efforts that increase the share of developers available.
Yes, I'm saying that this would not move forward without buy-in from non-programmers with influence. But language isn't the only thing. WASM is (correct me if I'm wrong) harder to reverse engineer, which must matter to those same stakeholders.
I don't see how it would be harder to RE than .NETs IL (which is pretty easy to RE), or even plain old assembly -- which looks horrible, but can be disassembled and even "decompiled" (which generates a potential C source from the disassembled bytecode).