Hey Monster, you may want to go off and read up on more of this inequality thing and the wage-stagnation since 1980’s concept. Me? I’ve learned 3 times more tech than what I knew in 2001, yet I make less in dollar count than I did then. Dollar count, like just the number of them with out taking into account inflation over the last 15 years. And you know what? I’m bloody happy to have a job. To have kept up with just a 2% inflation over that time period I would need to be making more than $40k extra. Yeah right. Good luck with that.
Here’s a theory you can research; The Number Anchor Bias. Think about it, getting paid more than $100k / year just SOUNDs like a lot of dough right? If you made $70k in 2001, what would you expect, per inflation, to make today? Well, if you figured 3% inflation, a medium between 2 and 4%, you would need to make $107k — and that’s just to maintain your existing salary. No extra knowledge applied, no extra duties, just the same job moved forward. Now, if you go out looking to get hired today, to do the set of tasks done in 2001, are you going to get $107k/year? Hell no! There’s a bias against paying more than $100k — for ANY job. And the higher up from there it just gets worse. Hiring agents and the companies they work for are anchored in the past. They are biased to look back 10, 20 years and say to themselves, “sheesh, $100k sure is a lot of money!”
Inflation doesn’t just eat our lunch, and dinner these days. It is set to destroy the foundation of the middle class.