Oh look, Fidel want's to argue another topic he has less experience with than the people discussing it.
Oh look, Duke starts off with a thinly veiled insult instead of taking something I say at face value.
It's got nothing to do with my knowledge of the material, and everything to do with relatively simple math.
15-20 years ago, computers and jobs involving computers were much less numerous than they are today. So, simply comparing how many people know anything about computers easily shows you that today there are more people that are tech-savvy than there were 15-20 years ago. Unfortunately, that doesn't really tell you how tech-savvy they are. Depending on what parameters you choose, depends on what data you get back.
Say you choose people with certifications in various computer fields. On one end you have 1 certification, on the other end you have
n certifications, where
n is the total number of certifications in existence at that time period. 15-20 years ago, you'll have a much smaller sample size, but you'll have a fairly standard looking bell-curve. Apply the same limitations to today's world and you'll get a bell-curve that (very likely) looks almost exactly the same once you factor in how many more certifications there are in today's world and how many more tech-savvy people there are.
You'll likely get a) the same bell-curves, or b) very similar bell-curves for all factors you choose when you examine that time period vs today's time period.
It isn't that overall there are more people that are tech-savvy or less, it's that the sample size of today vs yester-year has grown so much that you're constantly running into people on the low end of the bell-curve, so it's skewing your viewpoint.
In short, "get off my lawn, you damned kids!"