A user: ‘In 2021, I was offered less than in 1995’

Hiring at 40 and stagnant pay: the labour market grinds to a halt

A professional received an offer in 2021 for a job with a salary slightly lower than what he was earning in 1995. The paradox, which sounds like an after-dinner anecdote, sums up the crux of hiring in Spain: some companies say they are looking for mature, committed workers while the salaries they offer have barely moved in three decades. It is one participant's account, not a statistic. The person who received that offer says he had never earned so little money in euros. The contradiction has two sides, and both point to the same place: money.

Why some companies prefer to hire over-40s

The argument comes from a hiring manager quoted in the thread: the middle-aged candidate arrives with a mortgage, children and a salary on which his entire life depends. That makes him, he argues, more docile and more loyal. The young candidate, by contrast, comes across as volatile, ready to change companies, miss a Monday or look for something else as soon as the job gets tough. Some put it bluntly: the older worker has nowhere to go; the younger one does.

A veteran HR director in the automotive sector, cited as an example, summed up his hiring policy in that logic: he preferred a married man in his fifties to a freshly qualified kid. His reading was not sarracena but calculating. Family responsibilities equal retention.

Wages, according to participants, have not moved in fifteen years

The other issue running through the conversation about employment is frozen pay. The complaint is constant: pay is the same as fifteen years ago while the cost of living, they say, has multiplied. Those who make this claim talk about their own pay slips: services, hospitality, manual trades and office roles are still moving within the same ranges, often around the minimum wage or the minimum set by collective agreement.

And it is not just entry-level pay. A draughtsman with AutoCAD or SolidWorks can sign for €1,400 net, while construction offers between €1,500 and €1,600 net. The comparison one participant makes suggests that when pay rises, candidates appear.

Meritocracy as a fairy tale and housing out of reach

The harshest diagnosis is not aimed at young people but at the system that educates them. Studying, working hard and getting ahead has become a broken promise: at current prices, an average salary does not buy a home or allow you to start a family. Young people who no longer expect an inheritance or independence stay at their parents' home, with a console and a streaming service, and conclude that effort does not pay.

There are two versions of the same scene. For some, it is a comfortable generation that has discovered that hard work gives access to nothing and has decided not to play. For others, it is pure incentive logic: “no carrot, the donkey won't pull.” Both agree on one uncomfortable point: the social ladder has broken down and no one knows when it will return.

Sick leave, turnover and the accusation of lack of commitment

Against that diagnosis, the complaint from employers is explicit: junior profiles take time off for anything, frequently take short sick leaves and quit when the first problem appears. Cases are cited of recent graduates who within a few months had already accumulated absences for colds, and of twenty-somethings who melt at the first hard job, on a building site or under the sun.

The counterargument is just as forceful: temporary contracts and precarious conditions do not breed loyalty. No one gets involved in a job that pays just enough, forces them to be present in person and offers split shifts. Turnover would not be a cause; it would be a consequence.

The employer, caught between Hacienda (Spain’s tax authority) and a sword of Damocles

To all this is added the factor many point to as decisive: pressure on the employer. It is argued that the employer's margin is minimal, that part of labour costs goes in taxes and social security contributions, and that the presumption of innocence does not work in their favour before inspections and proceedings. Cutting working hours, in that context, is seen as one more blow to the viability of the business.

The conclusion that is repeated is uncomfortable for everyone: if the business cannot afford it, no pay rise is possible; if there is no pay rise, the worker won't pull their weight. The snake bites its tail and no one lets go of the hook. With these ingredients, the question is not whether there are too many candidates or a lack of commitment, but how long a market can last where older workers cling to a job out of necessity and younger ones, increasingly, find no reason to pull their weight.

---

How long can a system last that has turned effort into a bet without a prize?