To me, the OP’s post is an inquiry into “why” we do what we do. It is a useful inquiry that may be followed up with personal introspection, which might lead to a better understanding of ourselves if done with integrity.
For example - we work to earn money. Why do we earn money? So we can live comfortably (your answer might vary). Why do we want to live comfortably? And so on…
The line of reasoning you seem to have chosen ends at “to earn money” and then pivots to philosophers being affluent while seemingly (to me) proceeding to dismiss all the learnings procured by affluent people as though that makes them inherently different to the learnings procured by others (a conclusion that seems to have no solid basis).
When you have enough security that you have no worries for the medium term, you gain the luxury of time and brain energy to contemplate these things rather than having to focus your thoughts on such base things as eating, shelter, health, and maintaining your position.
The majority of us focus on our jobs, buy gadgets and take vacations because we don't have the luxuries of time and peace of mind (since our focus is by necessity on the near term), but we'd like to have them. And even a short-term feeling of luxury is better than none.
Apparently you’ve never been truly poor.
Oh no, wait. The opposite.
The poor live in a completely different world from the middle class, who live in a completely different world from the rich. And the philosophers generally live in the world of the rich, to preach to the world of the middle class. For the poor, there's only religion.
Top that all off with the constant victim blaming (I know you don't mean to, but that's basically what you're doing) and complete lack of empathy, and you have a vicious cycle that only the very lucky escape.
I know that HN is big on the fable of the meritocracy, but that's mainly because a not-insignificant chunk of HNers are in the ruling class, and most of the rest are hopeful to enter someday, somehow.
[1] https://phys.org/news/2012-11-poverty-people-focus-short-ter...
Also, the article is interesting because the underlying assumption here is that long term planning is a good thing. Meanwhile everybody who isn't poor is constantly talking about being more present and living in the "now". Again, I'm not defending this system or proposing any other system, but I'm trying to give another perspective on the issue.
This would loosely describe the general form of most middle class peoples' jobs, technical or not. You work a lot so as not to slip down to a lower class (and build up a buffer that will last into your twilight years), and try to massage more meaning into the small amount of remaining time using gadgets, fashion, and travel. Security in the future would leave your brain free to do more meaningful things, but few have such luxury.
> How many of us work countless hours for companies whose missions we don’t perhaps even agree with… how many of us ponder what is important to us and why we act the way we do?
Once again, this is generally the domain of the affluent. Most great philosophers were affluent.