That's not what the Fed chair is talking about. Nobody is concerned about wages in tech. Tech is one of the few industries that has the opposite of a stagnant wage growth problem.
While you are likely correct, what pembrook says is mostly true. The tech scene is often used by economists and the like as a cudgel against any talk that U.S. wages and the general economy are lackluster. (To be clear, I am basing this on actual discussions I have had, not theory and/or scholarly papers.)
And yet, like, at the end of the day the engine that drives the economy forward -- and humanity forward -- isn't cash. It's individual human beings sitting down and putting in the hard work in creating something new and nurturing it for years.
It feels like our economy gives most of the rewards to the people who put in money, and not enough to the people who put in the actual hard work. Even here, where things are amazing for employees.
However overall, the economy is a mechanism for rewarding risk, not hours spent in front of a keyboard. "Hard work" in general is a meaningless concept. What drives humanity forward is risk taking.
The system is designed to encourage holders of capital to risk losing it for the potential reward of even greater wealth. Without incentives for owners of capital to take risk, our society and technology doesn't progress.
Why? Because the founders gave you 1.8% pre-dillution equity, vesting over 8 years, and told you that's "very generous"?
You're an engineer in a market where engineers are in high demand and short supply. Being one of 3 engineers developing a product and getting just 1.8% of the equity - coupled with high demands and (I would bet) under-market pay isn't such a great deal.
You're shouldering quite a bit of risk spending your best working years in a place that likely will never be able to promote or pay you fairly. Your potential reward for that is very limited.
Yet after all this time, you still think you're getting an "incredible" deal...
Both things can be true - your comment is comparing up, as he did in his first comment, while his second comment compares down.
Speak for yourself. Wages in tech is highly consolidated into tech owners, tech engineers, and then tech support. Anyone on the periphery is not getting their fair share whatsoever.
If the company has millions of dollars in not just revenue but profits and a significant number of its employees are below poverty level and/or on welfare, is that fair? No, definitely not.
If the company's profit per employee is more than a certain percentage of a given employee's salary, is that fair? No, probably not.
If the company were to distribute a 10% salary bonus to all employees, would that bonus eliminate profits?
If the company were to distribute 10% of profits to all employees equally, how much difference against their salary would that change be?