Dennis,
I think a good contributor to the reason is that there really is nothing out there that is truely "perfect," especially in fast scopes. There is a compromise in every design to achieve what they do.
Another reason is like anything else, if you eat pizza every day for 2 years, pretty good bet that you'll get tired of it and move onto another food. Same with eyepieces I think, you fall in love with something, use it regularly, then find something else that does something a little different, and sell one to pay for the other.
And yet another reason is that as we observe more and spend more time, our interests and needs change, so then our choice of eyepieces needs to change. Example, if you started out primarily doing Lunar and Planetary observations, then Ortho's and Plossls with their mid-sized fields do a great job. After some years of that your interests then evolved and you are primarily a DSO person, then wide-field eyepieces fit the bill more.
Finally, some people just make wrong choices. Depending on your scope type, its focal ratio, and your observing site, some eyepieces are just wrong to use, regardless of whether they are from premium manufacturers or not. I think many people sell their stuff because they have gained experience and now realize this.
I have viewed thru (and owned) Televues, Orions, Celestrons, Meades, Sieberts, University Optics, TMBs, Burgess Opticals, Borgs, Edmunds, Russell Optics, Surplus Sheds, and some generics. While the fit/finish/build varies on all of these, all of them have units with are quite excellent when matched to the proper instrument and application. So as a rule, nothing is bad with any of them.
-Bill