Posts like this are really hitting a key social challenge for open source in general: a large fraction of complaints like this come from companies which derive commercial value from projects like Perl but often do not contribute to maintenance. There's an easy criticism that these companies are basically freeloading, and there's definitely some truth to that but I think it also touches on the difficulties of doing so: most companies aren't set up to make small donations efficiently and it's hard to say which fraction of the business value would be allocated between Perl and the hundreds of CPAN modules they're likely using.

Hiring developers can help in the sense that they'll probably cover many of the needs but that runs into a problematic dynamic where companies contribute things they need but not contributing to unrelated maintenance, which can actually increase the amount of labor on the open source team being asked to review and merge their contributions if that doesn't remove some of the other work.

One argument is that Red Hat is a good compromise for many companies: your accountants can easily write a check for RHEL & support and they employ hundreds of people who contribute to a wide range of projects. Services like GitHub Sponsors are another vision for that but I don't think we've hit a good balance which doesn't result in a major project getting resources while a lot of smaller pieces languish. Umbrella groups like the Django Software Foundation are trying to help with that but I think that's still a work in progress.