Yes, this particular individual gets well compensated compared to many. So what?
Let's all take a moment to reflect on a few things. For instance, we are pretty lucky to be passionate about something which just happens to be pretty good at producing a lot of monetary value for companies, and consequently it's not too hard for us to convince companies to pay us a lot and give us great benefits.
My dad works harder than me, is over twice my age, and gets paid less than me. I'd have to be extraordinarily entitled to say that I somehow deserve more than he gets. And yet somehow I do get more. Such is the world.
"'Deserve's got nothin' to do with it" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpDkYZWeeVg)
I'm "entitled" to a market rate. I'm also "entitled" to negotiate for the highest rate the market will bear.
This is one of those cases where a word has multiple definitions. And, as it happens, for one of the definitions of "entitled," the one I'm interested in, well, "deserve's got everythin' to do with it." From Merriam-Webster: "belief that one is deserving of certain privileges."
It is not "entitled" to demand to be paid the maximum value the market will bear for your skills. It is stupid to do otherwise.
"Entitlement" is literally nothing more than having the "right to something." And as a human, you are absolutely entitled to being paid exactly what you are worth.
Sure, whatever. But what you're not entitled to is being worth something in the first place.
If you can't recognize your own fortune in enjoying and being passionate about something which, as a side effect, makes you valuable to companies, I don't really see this discussion going anywhere from here.
Well then. If a company values me less than another company, I think I feel quite entitled to go to the company that values me more.
That doesn't mean that you should feel so inherently entitled to the compensation that you do get. While some executive may be making 10x your salary, you're probably making 10x the salary of someone else who works just as hard as you do.
If I were to say there is unfairness in the matter, it would be because not all activities are valued the same. There are obvious reasons for that which I don't contest, but the distribution of interests across different people is more or less random and pays no attention to whether those interests will lead to high-value skills or not.
I view myself as lucky to have an innate interest in something which makes me financially valuable to at least some companies. Some of my friends or family members don't have interests which tend to lead to high-value skills. As a result, for them to get a similarly paying job, they'd have to choose a career in something they don't enjoy.
I don't believe anyone is acting overly entitled for wanting to get the best compensation they can convince a company to pay them. Maybe I misread the original article, but I got the sense from the author's tone that he feels entitled to much more than simply being paid his worth, though. He just doesn't appear to be even remotely grateful for any of the fortunes he has to even have the option of turning down companies all over high-paying jobs which he enjoys greatly.
I suppose this is a case where words speak louder than actions. His actions--maximizing his expected compensation--are perfectly fine in my book. But his words betray a deeper level of entitlement which I don't think is justified. Just my two cents.
You're right: $1m/year is very rare overall even for the world of finance. And I assure you someone with that salary on Wall Street is working 80 hours a week at minimum and has been for quite some time.
The average engineer will have far less (or no) debt and will only need a BA/BS.