PJ2
I think that aviation is the most obvious example of the differences of thought in long term planning. For the CEO's, and RM is an obvious example, long term planning may go out as far as 6-months depending on the exact disposition of their profit sharing plan. For flight safety types, a decade is not unreasonable. The robber baron CEO's are very aware that they can ride the coat-tails of their predecessors for a year or two, and mortgage the company safety record. This allows them to pocket their millions in bonuses for making the company more "efficient", and the real cost of their decisions will not be know until long after they have left. It's left to the active participants to pick up the pieces of the safety margins that are left, and make it work. As you state, the calibre of the entrants gradually weakens, leading to a decline in safety, followed by much gnashing of teeth, and wailing from the taxpayers that the government should do something. At this point the public is just a willing participant in the flight-safety mortgage scheme.
Of the 3 or 4 people that have approached me over the last four years with queries about entering aviation, none have followed through. Not because of doom and gloom from me, but solely due to a realistic assessment with actual details of the payback (or lack thereof) of the career. I left two viable careers to follow this one. I wouldn't make the same mistake again.
Sharksandwich
Though there is not a direct link between high pay and safety, rest assured that there will be a direct link between low pay and safety. The trained professionals will not be around in the next generation. But perhaps that is something best left to the kids to worry about, once it's too obvious to ignore. Colgan is the tip of the iceberg.