My final peeve for today is those managers who complain they can't find qualified and motivated staff for jobs that only pay barely above the minimum wage. Why would a motivated intelligent individual want to work in an industry that pays so poorly?
I see your point but you need to distinguish between managers/employees who are (often) forced to offer ratbag salaries by their employers and employers (usually SMEs) who constantly wish to shift all training and development costs to other people by insisting that someone has to have X amount of experience. The latter group usually always consist of unmitigated cheapskates backed by the likes of the EMA and other employers' advocacy groups (I sadly have to deal with these people a lot for my job), whose apparent sole purpose for existence is to depress the employment market as much as possible and to pay as little as possible.
I'll also say one thing about corporates: there are plenty of things wrong with them but if you are looking at professional roles, at least most of them pay (at a minimum) a pretty fair middling salary, usually more. I have nothing but contempt for, for example, suburban law firms and accountancy firms that expect their staff to generate 300K in fees and then pay them 60K a year.
That's crazy. Graduates starting at the big law firms in London a week after coming down from University are on $100,000 equivalent.
It probably happens less here but many firms in the UK are still run like old partnerships and so many people I know were expected to work for decades on paltry salaries on the off chance that they managed to get to 45 without offending any of the existing partners, their wives, children etc etc and would get offered partnership and equity in the business. The saddest ones are the employees at 55 who have failed to make the grade or annoyed the wrong people or whatever and do not get offered it, retiring at 65 as 'Senior Associate' or something of that ilk.