He wasn't implying that. You've inverted his statement. Many economists and engineers I know care less about how they code and care more about getting a solution to the model at hand--this seems to be the poster's point. The implication is exactly what he exposited, whereas the logical inverse is what you've mistakenly deduced as the implication.
Perhaps it comes off that way to you but I'd be willing to bet it doesn't to the great majority of readers, because it simply isn't saying what you say it's saying.
OK, but he's worded it wrong, it gives the impression of a snarkiness. Maybe he's saying that matlab users can't program well but are still intelligent/well paid (but that doesn't really make sense since numpy is equally easy and an intelligent/educated person wouldn't find programming hard). Anyway, maybe I misread it and you're right.
edit: great, I was getting points before, and then you come along with your italics.
