Under the post about Zoomers, one of my respected long-time subscribers and good friend Timur disagreed with me:

“For the first time, I disagree with what is written.
Conducting a survey among a non-working audience (and judging by the site, it was conducted among students and future graduates) and presenting it as a trend in the labor market — I consider it absurd. It's like asking a child who is finishing kindergarten what subjects they will love in school.
The criteria for choosing a workplace change dramatically, or at least for the most part, after 1–2 years of work. That's who you should focus on. Most of the working young generation with 2+ years of experience understand that no salary will allow them to buy an apartment in the near future, so they reorient to other criteria.
In my personal opinion, the three main criteria that are currently trending are: 1) working conditions — not about cookies, but about real social security; 2) the opportunity for a quick start; 3) and only then salary.”

I agree with Timur only partially. The survey was indeed conducted among students and university graduates, that is, among non-working youth. I completely agree with Timur that such a survey may not reflect the trend in the labor market, and after 2 years of work, priorities may change. I will still argue with the rest.

Work is an exchange of your skills and your personal time for money. That's it. These are market relations. If you are not working for money, then it is no longer work, but volunteering, charity, or a hobby. Therefore, always and everywhere, the main factor in choosing a job will be salary. I emphasize: the main, but not the only one.

How can and should research be interpreted? If company X pays 180,000 in Moscow, and company Y pays 130,000, but Y offers career growth, valuable experience, and interesting tasks, then Y will attract more young people and is a more competitive company. But if X pays 180,000 and Y pays 80,000, then nothing will save Y. 80k in Moscow means living on the verge of starvation. And who would refuse a salary 2.5 times higher? You can't offer "interesting experience" but pay peanuts.

Therefore, "interesting and valuable experience," "meaning of work," or any other perks are exclusively additional factors. Yes, important and necessary, but only after salary.

Here is a study from VCIOM among four large groups, including young specialists with up to 3 years of experience. It comes to an unambiguous conclusion about the primacy of salary among priorities for young specialists:
...they want to know exactly how much they will receive “net”

Demand for transparency and clarity of financial conditions


Another study among working specialists from the same VCIOM:
every second respondent is dissatisfied with the money that the employer pays them monthly


A third study from VCIOM. Among the expectations from the first permanent job in the 18–35 age group, a high salary level is 51%. This is the highest single item on the list. But almost closely followed by environmental factors: friendly team — 50%, stable employment — 49%, reasonable workload without overtime — 49%, safe and comfortable working conditions — 46%.

In the same study, regarding pain points in the 18–35 group, low salary is 45%, and this is the largest problematic factor, literally next to burnout and emotional fatigue — 44%.

Research from ANCOR and "Profrazvitie" comes to the same results. Similarly, in the international market, according to Deloitte's assessment.

The list can be continued for a very long time. The differences in these studies and survey groups are only in which additional features after salary are more important to them. That is where there is a large space for discussion.

What do you think about this, my dear readers?