Good: technologists who recognize that business people don't deserve to hold all the power just because they control the money. Business people who recognize that they have something to offer, but don't try to turn it into interpersonal power over the (socially weak, often) engineers.
Bad: arrogant asshole brogrammers who think everything that isn't code isn't worthy of respect. Business people who think programmers are a commodity (news flash: we're fucking not and if you staff up with CommodityDevelopers, say hello to VisitorSingletonFactories and goodbye to getting anything done.)
There's a difference between the two. Business people add a lot of value, but there are a lot of arrogant schmucks in that set who detract, and who give the whole set a bad name.
I think the issue is that the correlation between wanting to code and being good at it is positive. For management, it's the reverse. Good managers are not people who want to be bosses, and the people who've wanted to be tech managers since age 19 are huge fucking douchebags. Good managers want to build great things and see management as part of the process in getting there. Shitty managers want to be bosses. Excellence wants to do great things. Mediocrity wants to be great (in title and reputation).
Management (as in, the work) is important and, when done well, worth a person's salary several times over. The problem is that 90% of the people who are trusted to do it, at least in private-sector technology, are fucking horrible at it.