Aurelio said:
The view from the glass offices: A mediocre 35-year-old can be paid much less than a 50-year-old stud. A clueless 23-year-old can be paid much less than a mediocre 35-year-old. Class dismissed.
I'm with ya on the "stud" vs. "mediocre" vs. "clueless" distinctions. But talent levels being equal, a 35-year-old likely has maximum service time for just about any pay scale. So at that point, it's simply a matter of what the person is willing and able to work for -- or how long he/she stays in the same place and continues to get raises that "compound."
I know plenty of 35-year-olds who make as much as 50-year-olds at the same shop. I also know plenty of 50-year-olds who would take a job paying what might be offered to a 35-year-old. Frankly, some 35-year-olds need more money than the 50-year-olds, if they're saving for a house down payment or paying for daycare. Some 50-year-olds already are clearn of tuition bills.
And, the way this business has gone, I know some 50-year-olds who only have gotten a few raises since they were 35. (Silver lining of horsecrap wages: You aren't as likely to get priced out of your job. Big-frickin'-hooray!)
There aren't many 50-year-olds who would, or could, take what a 23-year-old gets paid. But there aren't many 35-year-olds who would do that either. Past your first 10 years in the biz, though, I think the notion that one age group is cheaper than another is mostly artificial.
This is a business where the paycheck tops out pretty quickly, and the only significant raises (if they exist anymore at all) come from job-hopping, which usually means market-hopping. That still doesn't stop management from wanting to push the reset button on its workers' wages.
