[extr]

I don't think I agree with the framing that the situation is some kind of scheme by executives to underpay people. All jobs have compensation, status, quality of life, "passion" components, etc. If someone wants to take a job that is higher status and that they're passionate about in exchange for lower direct compensation, who's to say that's not that person's preference?

Now, is it unfair that the compensation component is so low that people who don't have other means of income effectively can't take the job? Personally, I don't think so. I would love to research butterflies 24/7 and if I was independently wealthy perhaps would, but I completely understand that demand for butterfly research doesn't generate enough funding to make it possible to do that and lead the life I live now.

FWIW, from my limited experience leadership were all perfectly lovely people, extremely passionate about publishing as well, who in some cases had worked all of these "drummed up" jobs themselves on their way up the ladder.