I do agree that in the "real world" we absolutely need good PM's and good BA's, especially when you have to deal with larger scales, industrial or financial amongst others. Where I work I happen to manage (yes, I am one of those in "management") both PM's and BA's, and also manage a good chunk of developers, dba's, network folks, systems management and other tech-folk. My PM's and BA's are handpicked for their effectiveness and their ability to "get it" and translate the tech-speak to business-speak and vice versa, and not get railroaded by the business side wanting my techs to "do it quicker and cheaper at all costs" or my techs wanting to pull wool over the business side eyes; I view them as my cops yet they have the respect of both sides.
The issue becomes when you as a company start feeling that in order to be more competitive, you can solve the issue just by increasing the number of PM's and BA's which in turn will invariably generate more work, yet your tech base is left either with the same numbers or is reduced to make room for those new inbound PM's and BA's.
That’s where comments like our esteemed colleague “kiwimate” come from IMO, and while I don’t condone the arrogance in that statement, I do understand how frustrating it is to see these “ill-defined” positions overwhelm the rest.
If you manage these positions actively and effectively, you CAN live in harmony. When you get complacent and start thinking that power points and spreadsheets alone will solve your problems, then you’ll have a room full of “kiwimates” holding pitch forks and torches and your ability to be an effective manager is toast.