> [...] Many of the most brilliant human beings of that era worked for very modest salaries, and seemed content to do so. IMHO this is so obvious -- cost of li

> [...] Many of the most brilliant human beings of that era worked for very modest salaries, and seemed content to do so. IMHO this is so obvious -- cost of living, especially housing, healthcare, and higher-education. A modest salary back in the 80s was good enough to raise a family on. A modest salary these days rarely does. Let me present some actual numbers: My father purchased a house for ~30k USD. His annual salary was ~30k USD. He was always insistent on working at non-profits and did that for decades as an accountant/auditor/comptroller. Today, I cannot easily afford the same house even on a mid-high-end salary because the affordability ratio is enormous 2x or 3x. Forget about affording that house on a non-profit org salary. Further, Bell Labs was a very safe job, you didnt have to worry about layoffs as much back then. So you could further afford things by making a bet on an affordable suburb. That is a harder bet today -- you move to some affordable suburb (which still isnt as affordable as it used to be) and suddenly you've lost your job. You better hope it is close to a commutable metro area. Same thing with healthcare. Same thing with higher ed. I joined finance, and later tech, because I saw the writing on the wall -- not because I was "pursuing wealth" but because I was pursuing the same exact lifestyle my dad had as a default.