I am intimately convinced it could play a role, at two layers. First, at the framework layer itself: the plethora of propositions seems symptomatic of our approach to dealing with things we don't like. When confronted to the choice of walking the extra mile to improve and contribute to an existing language/framework, or building your own new thing that focuses on solving your own problem, my guess is that the more senior architects (esp. those working at licorns or GAFAMs) will choose the latter option, thus resulting in an increased offer. Also, let's not forget, being the author of a successful language or framework sounds cool.
Second, at the user layer (architect at random corp): this individual is increasingly convinced that working with the latest silicon valley approved framework will work wonders on her/his resume.
I am confronted to new software architectures on a weekly basis as a result of my job and the choices of framework/language X as opposed to Y often follows a common pattern: some architect thinks that segmenting a system into as many components/technologies as possible somehow always makes it more reliable at the end.
If I owned a software company, I'd immediately get rid of anyone showing these behaviors. But I have to admit: the bigger the mess, the more hours I can bill :)