You seem to be asking two entirely different questions here. the first one around the relative strengths of the HR labour market over time and the second one a debate around how easy is it progress in a HR career  linked to your age(and you have aired this second one on numerous other threads so I wont go over the same ground again).

In terms of your first question - its an interesting one and really difficult to judge. I think there are three or four  factors that probably would support the view that there was not the intense competition 20 years ago (in my experience)  

1. There were less graduates in the market and less Fellows / MCIPD meaning that those statuses had perhaps more cache. In addition I believe there were less people with masters in HRM applying for roles. Meaning that if you were in one of those buckets you probably were competing against a smaller group of people. Years ago it was a question of if you needed to be a graduate to get on in HR , now its often the question if you need a Masters Degree. proliferation in qualifications without a readjustment in expectations about what those qualifications will enable you to access has led to a mismatch for me.
   
   
2. Ulrich type models were still not widely adopted across UK HRM. Meaning that many departments had more traditional structures and there were more places to grow and learn the skills. Rather than Service Centres, BPs and Centres of Excellence there tended to be more generic roles that perhaps were easier for people to transition into and grow in. There was less of the step from Service Centre administrator to HRBP. Its a step I think many still find very hard and I am not sure what the answer is.
   
   
3. There are far less entry / training routes into the profession than there used to be (I believe but cant prove). Historically there were many Graduate Entry Schemes (its how I came into the profession) and many/most of these seem to have gone away. Whilst there are now apprentice schemes these haven't really taken off in any degree (yet)  meaning entry routes are more hap hazard.
   
   
4. Reorganisations in businesses have largely targeted middle management roles, the sort of roles that people grew into and learned their skills. This coupled with (2) above may have had a double whammy type effect on HR career paths.

So my sense is that it is probably harder to get into HR now than it used to be (although it was never easy) and  I am not sure this is going to get any easier any time soon.

In reply to Keith:

Concur with Keith and would add :

1. The 70', 80's 90s were periods of strong economic growth which created value for the economy. In this context companies grew and people (end the need to offer HR services for them) grew with them.
2. When I completed my postgraduate diploma ion personnel management at the LSE in 1079 there were only 2 quality HR courses available - LSE (Nancy Seer) and Manchester Business School (Enid Mumford). 
3. In the context of 1. and 2. there was an excess offer of jobs for a limited number of HR "professionals, so most of us had a wide choice of jobs - I turned down BP and two other major multinationals to join a international civil engineering company as my first job
4. The last 10-15 years has seen low economic growth and an increase of skills on offer - this seems unlikely to change in the immediate future. Consequently getting into most jobs today is a lot harder and will not be easier without the return of significant economic growth
5. Forward thinking companies nonetheless have a pull/push approach for key jobs and people
   1. succession planning for key jobs, where they identify and review internal people resources for potential fit in 1-3 years time (typically 3 potential successors for each job)
   2. career development planning for key players where attempts are made to identify jobs into which they have the potential to grow over a similar time frame (typically 3 potential jobs into which they can grow)
   3. matching a) to b) and building development paths (training, projects) that help with the acquisition of necessary skills
   4. NB this will only provide growth for people if jobs are actually available due ti growth or turnover

In reply to Keith:

To add to Keith's point on managing expectations, I have had a number of conversations with graduates on readjusting their expectations. I'm unsure where the view of entering the HR field at a managerial level stemmed from (perhaps educational institutions have miss-sold advanced level qualifications?) but this appears to have been the expectation of a number of people I have come across. Whilst education is an excellent start, there is still a requirement to have a balance of both academic ability and practical experience - in whichever order works best for the individual!

In reply to Caroline:

What however happens, per my latest article below that another scenario comes into play that you have the qualifications and some experience but despite of that, still can't get any further into it?

That can be a particularly complex situation that you both have it all and tick all the right boxes on paper, but it still does not happen and / or work for you.

www.cipd.co.uk/.../in-the-future-in-the-hr-profession-could-people-get-chartered-or-fellow-membership-based-on-longevity-not-level-of-experience