> I think what's really missing from the discussion is the simple fact that if creative jobs (artist, writer) or less technical jobs paid as well as Soft Eng jobs then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That's largely a function of markets. You make it sound like it's a policy of some kind, or some kind of social problem that needs fixing. Also, you yourself are guilty of exaggerating the value of money.
> Alternatively, we wouldn't be having this discussion if our society did not largely judge a man's success in life by his wealth (and the things money can buy, like a nice car).
Who's judging you? Some people might, but what do you care? Associate with people that value similar things, not with people whose highest values are cars and money.
> I guess what I'm saying is that, if I had the choice, I would rather be a sculptor making the same salary as a Senior Soft Eng than an engineer at a large company.
Again with the money. If you want to be a sculptor, be a sculptor.
> Too bad our society isn't set up like that, eh?
Set up? Nothing is "set up". You seem to be living under the impression that there's this abstract looming thing called "society" that lords over the affairs of man, and that you are this lone ego occupying its center. Society is the set of individual human beings in a network of a variety of relationships. Money doesn't fall from the sky. Who's going to pay you for your sculptures? Are people supposed to pay you just so you can do what you want, market demand be damned?
(Btw, some sculptors make ludicrous amounts of money. Many probably make okay money, though apparently the avg. salary for sculptors, painters and illustrators in Delaware is the same as the average for software engineers.)