Ditko's estate... 6 6

[SBRobin]

On 8/30/2018 at 9:58 AM, RCheli said:

I suspect that Ditko was getting decent royalty checks for his work that was being reprinted by Marvel, DC, and other companies. I don't believe he has refused payment for that. His Spider-Man and Dr. Strange stories have been constantly in print over the past few decades, and while it's not huge money and not anywhere near the rate one would get for new pages, it was something. 

Did Marvel pay their artists royalties when they were wage employees?

Edited August 31, 2018 by SBRobin

[namisgr]

1 hour ago, the blob said:

Where is this coming from? He has two siblings, his estate is not going to the state.

It's my response to a poster who said they'd consider burning or otherwise destroying their collectibles earlier in the thread.  It had nothing to do with Mr. Ditko.  You copied it from page 1, where the original post was quoted.

 

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by namisgr

[500Club]

36 minutes ago, SBRobin said:

Did Marvel pay their artists royalties when they were wage employees?

Jim Shooter ushered in the royalty system at Marvel in the 80s, I believe, in a transition period where creators were standing up for their rights to a greater extent. 

[the blob]

1 hour ago, namisgr said:

It's my response to a poster who said they'd consider burning or otherwise destroying their collectibles earlier in the thread.  It had nothing to do with Mr. Ditko.  You copied it from page 1, where the original post was quoted.

 

 

Quote did not quote everything, I was wondering why he brought it up. I guess these threads go in a lot of directions. I am guilty of that.

[the blob]

The $1.3 sounds like mushy number. Then again, if he had a lot of his post Marvel art maybe not that mushy. At $700-1000+ a page (any idea what his post Marvel stuff goes for?) If he had kept his pages and sketches it could get up there. And did he have ownership over any of his later characters?

Edited September 1, 2018 by the blob

[Aweandlorder]

first of all am I the only one that sits here reading this thinking to myself "1.3 million? That's all???"

most of my family is from NY and sadly we lost a few relatives in the past year alone and each one of them left behind estates worth at least a million. And that is only because of equity relating to their property. 

Steve's sad story is mainly originating from the fact that he didn't have anything. Not because he was pushed around by savvy businessmen. He did not own a house, didnt have a spouse/children. Didn't even leave a will. 

So sad

You'd be surprised to know how many people wait until the last minute to set a will. That usually leaves relatives/family members at a very awkward position. 

The article said that steve owed 6 mo worth of rent. What about bills/debt? 

I wouldn't be surprised if his siblings would refuse to accept his "estimated" estate, if his unpaid bills accumulate to 50,000+

common sense would suggest that they should, but some people just don't have the time to dedicate to probating a will which wasn't even set forth. 

Again, just a sad read, and with respect to the legend, I almost wish I didn't have to read this

[Prince Namor]

On 8/29/2018 at 2:01 PM, Unca Ben said:

Pondering the Ditko situation leaves me with more questions than answers, which makes sense considering it's Ditko. 
How much is an apartment in New York City?  Did he own or rent?  Did Ditko live and work out of that apartment or did he have another New York studio for work?  Would the books he self published along with Robin Snyder provide enough income to live and work in New York (Manhattan, right?) and leave him with over a million dollar estate?  What do we really know about royalty checks or the lack of them?

I know Wally Wood tried the self-publishing route and according to biographers it didn't provide him with an adequate income.   And he wasn't living in New York City.
It doesn't seem rational to make judgments about Marvel regarding the treatment of Steve when information on the subject is mostly third-hand and anecdotal.  I'd imagine someone like Robin Snyder might be in a better position than most of us in regard to the situation. 

I'm not sure if IDW or Fantagraphics paid any kind of royalties for Ditko books featuring public domain work, but there's a possibility he still got residuals from his DC work, as they were much better about paying for that than most publishers and wouldn't really go against Ditko's philosophy. DC had a Ditko Omnibus HC (2011) and a Creeper HC (2010)... maybe that helped.

It'd be interesting to see what kind of self publishing sales he had.

He seems like he'd have been frugal. 

I hope Robin Snyder collects those Ditko essays on his Spider-man work, I'd love to read those...

[delekkerste]

12 hours ago, the blob said:

The $1.3 sounds like mushy number. 

Calm down folks. $1.3 mil is a mushy made up number.  He still had at least several million dollars worth of his 60s art (rumored to be 2 ASM complete stories, plus a partial ASM story and bunch of Strange Tales stuff, both published and unpublished, among whatever else), though, I can't blame whoever came up with that bogus $1.3 number either not counting or not knowing how to value the art. 

Reminds me of the stories when Anthony Bourdain recently passed about him having a ridiculously low net worth. Turns out he had 8-figures of other assets in trust and elsewhere. 

Don't believe everything you read about money and values in the paper.  Remember when Shadroch posted that article about the hoard of Abstract Expressionist art found in Long Island that the papers said were worth millions even though nobody had heard of the guy? Totally bogus; the guy feeding those values to the headline-sensationalizing press had a financial stake in these essentially worthless paintings. 

Ditko dying with a mere $1.3 mil net worth (middle class at best in NYC) makes for a far more heart-rending article than saying he was worth $8 million or whatever including his own artwork. And, in any case, where Ditko ended up was of his own choosing and on his own terms. He could have gotten royalties, more art back, or, even if he didn't want anything from Marvel, he could have still made a mint doing more commercial projects and endeavors. I also don't think you can just blame it on his Objectivist views; I've never heard of another Objectivist with such antipathy towards money. He just was who he was and, for better or worse, stayed true to that. 

Edited September 1, 2018 by delekkerste

[Prince Namor]

On 8/30/2018 at 3:44 PM, 500Club said:

Two interesting lines of thought here.  First, Ditko followed the philosophies of Ayn Rand.  That led him to 'withdraw his services' from ASM, as he felt at the time he wasn't being compensated properly for the amount he was contributing to the title.  Near the end of his run on ASM, Stan was apparently discussing plots and stories in very cursory terms, leaving Ditko to essentially flesh out and tell the stories with his art.  That didn't seem to be a fair division of labor to Steve, when lined up with the relative compensation and acclaim being given.  Randian Objectivism thus led Ditko to look out for his own interests, and leave ASM.  In everything I've read, it wasn't the fact he was co-creator of Spidey that bothered Ditko, it was the fact that he was the de facto engine driving ASM at the end, while Stan was benefitting disproportionately from the success of the title.

1

Stan has said that over the last year or so of Ditko's time on the book, he'd just drop off the pages and he wouldn't even know what he was getting. Yet 'Stan Lee' was still listed as the writer on the book. So it got even worse as far as the fair division of labor towards the end...

On 8/30/2018 at 3:44 PM, 500Club said:

Secondly, I agree with you on the work-for-hire perspective.  At the time, the creators entered into a contract where they provided a product, and the receiving company paid them for it.  This contract was entered into because the creator didn't have the wherewithal to get his product to point of sale without the enterprise capital (preparation, printing, publishing, distributing) that the corporation provided.  Occasionally, creators in various fields feel strongly enough about their creations that they split off from their work-for-hire contracts, and choose to supply all the capital required to produce and sell their product.  This, of course, entails much more risk.   Thus, choosing work-for-hire allows for a significant risk reduction, and a guaranteed return.  It's much in vogue to bemoan the poor creators who had creations succeed beyond anyone's wildest beliefs, but, on the other side of the contract, how about the unsuccessful product that the companies paid for? You never hear about anyone asking for a clawback of payments, which would be the symmetrical response from the other side of the contract.

1

Mmmm.... man, I just can't disagree with everyone's assessment of this more.

First of all, look at the result. Where are the great creators in comics today?

They're working in other forms of media that compensate them for their talent, creativity, and... success. Comic Books got what it deserved for treating it's talent the way that it did. I'm surprised people even still read Marvel and DC, when really ALL it has going for it, is what these legendary creators gave them. 

Comic Books in the basic state are over simplified and kind of childish, but today’s comics are grotesquly incestuous in story and superficially grandiose in form, like a blurred copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy.... who is there to breathe life into it?

WHY would anyone be there to breathe life into it?

Is this really what everyone thinks is a successful business model?

I got MINE! F YOU! Is this really the American mentality toward greatness?

Stan did what a company man does - he promoted the face of the company as comics, and promised Jack and Steve better things to keep them around for as long as he could. Ditko saw through it and left, Kirby held out hope for longer, but eventually realized he’d been lied to as well.

Most of these early greats in comics were sons of immigrants who'd come to America with nothing... they weren't business savvy - they were artists.

But to hell with it… it’s all about the profit of the company. Let’s put kids back to work - they should KNOW better - and pay anyone we can less than we have to.

Those sweatshops work out well in third world countries… if those people don’t like it, they should start their own company! Let ‘em eat cake!

Comics, and their fans, have gotten exactly what they deserve.

Watered down garbage, created by people who'll never give there best to an ungrateful corporation.

 

[DanCooper]

31 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Ditko dying with a mere $1.3 mil net worth (middle class at best in NYC) makes for a far more heart-rending article than saying he was worth $8 million or whatever including his own artwork. 

Reminds me of the articles on Mickey Rooney's estate when he passed. Worth only $18,000:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/04/08/rooney-estate-stepson/7486121/

That comes out to 18 NM copies of "Hello Pal" #1 based on current guide!

 

[The Lions Den]

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 11:03 AM, JollyComics said:

I guess the isolation makes the life harder.

Very sad to hear this story...please accept my sincere condolences. 

As far as folks preferring to be isolated, I completely understand it. Many of the stories I see these days revolve around people behaving very badly toward one another. To be honest, I'm perfectly content to keep my distance from the entire mess...

Edited September 1, 2018 by The Lions Den
Edited response

[bronze johnny]

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

Stan has said that over the last year or so of Ditko's time on the book, he'd just drop off the pages and he wouldn't even know what he was getting. Yet 'Stan Lee' was still listed as the writer on the book. So it got even worse as far as the fair division of labor towards the end...

Mmmm.... man, I just can't disagree with everyone's assessment of this more.

First of all, look at the result. Where are the great creators in comics today?

They're working in other forms of media that compensate them for their talent, creativity, and... success. Comic Books got what it deserved for treating it's talent the way that it did. I'm surprised people even still read Marvel and DC, when really ALL it has going for it, is what these legendary creators gave them. 

Comic Books in the basic state are over simplified and kind of childish, but today’s comics are grotesquly incestuous in story and superficially grandiose in form, like a blurred copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy.... who is there to breathe life into it?

WHY would anyone be there to breathe life into it?

Is this really what everyone thinks is a successful business model?

I got MINE! F YOU! Is this really the American mentality toward greatness?

Stan did what a company man does - he promoted the face of the company as comics, and promised Jack and Steve better things to keep them around for as long as he could. Ditko saw through it and left, Kirby held out hope for longer, but eventually realized he’d been lied to as well.

Most of these early greats in comics were sons of immigrants who'd come to America with nothing... they weren't business savvy - they were artists.

But to hell with it… it’s all about the profit of the company. Let’s put kids back to work - they should KNOW better - and pay anyone we can less than we have to.

Those sweatshops work out well in third world countries… if those people don’t like it, they should start their own company! Let ‘em eat cake!

Comics, and their fans, have gotten exactly what they deserve.

Watered down garbage, created by people who'll never give there best to an ungrateful corporation.

 

Bravo! Agree and I will add to the point you made about how Kirby and Ditko weren't business savvy in relation to "work for hire," especially given the time period they lived in. Does anyone believe these guys had attorneys sitting next to them when they read and signed these contracts? Did these guys even retain attorneys back then? It's easy to say that they should have gotten attorneys back then to review the contract - be interesting to see how Marvel and other companies would have viewed that back then. Think about the time they lived in and the fact that these guys were artists and not business men. Consider whether they really understood the long term consequences of work for hire. Also consider whether there were any other option for them back then- did comic book companies provide alternatives to work for hire arrangements? Easy to say that they could have just found something else- Madison Avenue? Back then when you didn't fit the ethnic and/or religious background? Let's not get caught up in drawing conclusions based on how things work today to what things were like back then. Sadly, Kirby, Ditko, and many others had to go through their experiences in order that those who followed them reap the benefits of creator owned artwork.

Edited September 1, 2018 by bronze johnny

[Prince Namor]

2 minutes ago, bronze johnny said:

Bravo! Agree and I will add to the point you made about how Kirby and Ditko weren't business savvy in relation to "work for hire," especially given the time period they lived in. Does anyone believe these guys had attorneys sitting next to them when they read and signed these contracts? Did these guys even retain attorneys back then? It's easy to say that they should have gotten attorneys back then to review the contract - be interesting to see how Marvel and other companies would have viewed that back then. Think about the time they lived in and the fact that these guys were artists and not business men. Consider whether they really understood the long term consequences of work for hire. Also consider whether there were any other option for them back then- did comic book companies provide alternatives to work for hire arrangements? Let's not get caught up in drawing conclusions based on how things work today to what things were like back then. Sadly, Kirby, Ditko, and many others had to go through their experiences in order that those who followed them reap the benefits of creator owned artwork.

Gil Kane who WAS a little more business savvy and Wally Wood who certainly had the drive were met with great obstacles in trying to self-publish... the large publishers all had close relationships to their distributors, some even owning their distribution, and in most instances, new and independent publishing were shut out from the newsstand. Ditko and Kirby were well aware of how it worked.

You have to remember, the lesson was already drilled into people's heads - don't cross a publisher or you won't get enough work to survive or we'll eliminate you all together. Most people like to believe it was Wertham who destroyed EC Comics... not so. It was the other publisher's who ganged up on them and created the comics code (despite the government passing no laws or mandate's that comics HAD to change), with wording specifically aimed at EC.

EC Comics treated their artists well, paid them better, encouraging individuality, signing their name to their stories, doing one page artist info write ups… everything the industry DIDN’T do. (Stan Lee likes to take credit for SOME of these things, as well as interaction in the letters pages, fan clubs, etc. - nope, EC did it 10 years before he did)

It’s one of the reasons so many of these artists went to work for Mad Magazine after EC folded as opposed to going to work for Stan Lee or DC. They knew better. But the lesson was learned - go against the publishers and we will find a way to shut you out. There’s a reason Steranko kisses Marvel (and Stan Lee’s) hiney to this very day.

It wasn't as simple as just go off and publish on your own back then.

[500Club]

3 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I also don't think you can just blame it on his Objectivist views; I've never heard of another Objectivist with such antipathy towards money. He just was who he was and, for better or worse, stayed true to that. 

‘Blame’ is the wrong word.  From Steve’s perspective, ‘credit’ is the way to look at it.  As you say, he lived life true to himself.  For him, unlike a lot of people, Objectivist or not, money wasn’t important.

[the blob]

3 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Calm down folks. $1.3 mil is a mushy made up number.  He still had at least several million dollars worth of his 60s art (rumored to be 2 ASM complete stories, plus a partial ASM story and bunch of Strange Tales stuff, both published and unpublished, among whatever else), though, I can't blame whoever came up with that bogus $1.3 number either not counting or not knowing how to value the art. 

Reminds me of the stories when Anthony Bourdain recently passed about him having a ridiculously low net worth. Turns out he had 8-figures of other assets in trust and elsewhere. 

Don't believe everything you read about money and values in the paper.  Remember when Shadroch posted that article about the hoard of Abstract Expressionist art found in Long Island that the papers said were worth millions even though nobody had heard of the guy? Totally bogus; the guy feeding those values to the headline-sensationalizing press had a financial stake in these essentially worthless paintings. 

Ditko dying with a mere $1.3 mil net worth (middle class at best in NYC) makes for a far more heart-rending article than saying he was worth $8 million or whatever including his own artwork. And, in any case, where Ditko ended up was of his own choosing and on his own terms. He could have gotten royalties, more art back, or, even if he didn't want anything from Marvel, he could have still made a mint doing more commercial projects and endeavors. I also don't think you can just blame it on his Objectivist views; I've never heard of another Objectivist with such antipathy towards money. He just was who he was and, for better or worse, stayed true to that. 

Ditko rented, did not own, his apartment, which is why his net worth Is not more bloated.Anyone who bought a 2b apartment in much of Manhattan in the 60s would be a millionaire now based on that. My folks paid $8700 for the apartment I grew up in. It is worth about $3 million now. Too bad they sold over 20 years ago. I would be able to retire even sharing with 2 siblings.

[the blob]

13 hours ago, Aweandlorder said:

first of all am I the only one that sits here reading this thinking to myself "1.3 million? That's all???"

most of my family is from NY and sadly we lost a few relatives in the past year alone and each one of them left behind estates worth at least a million. And that is only because of equity relating to their property. 

Steve's sad story is mainly originating from the fact that he didn't have anything. Not because he was pushed around by savvy businessmen. He did not own a house, didnt have a spouse/children. Didn't even leave a will. 

So sad

You'd be surprised to know how many people wait until the last minute to set a will. That usually leaves relatives/family members at a very awkward position. 

The article said that steve owed 6 mo worth of rent. What about bills/debt? 

I wouldn't be surprised if his siblings would refuse to accept his "estimated" estate, if his unpaid bills accumulate to 50,000+

common sense would suggest that they should, but some people just don't have the time to dedicate to probating a will which wasn't even set forth. 

Again, just a sad read, and with respect to the legend, I almost wish I didn't have to read this

His rent was unpaid because he was in the hospital and nobody was minding his affairs, not because he didn't have the money. His siblings will have plenty to pay his debts and then some.

[delekkerste]

9 minutes ago, 500Club said:

‘Blame’ is the wrong word.  From Steve’s perspective, ‘credit’ is the way to look at it.  As you say, he lived life true to himself.  For him, unlike a lot of people, Objectivist or not, money wasn’t important.

I'm just saying that people attribute a lot more to his Objectivist beliefs than is warranted. A lot of it was just his personality and personal values.  Other Objectivists in his shoes would not have necessarily made the same life choices he did. 

[Buzzetta]

5 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Stan has said that over the last year or so of Ditko's time on the book, he'd just drop off the pages and he wouldn't even know what he was getting. Yet 'Stan Lee' was still listed as the writer on the book. So it got even worse as far as the fair division of labor towards the end...

Mmmm.... man, I just can't disagree with everyone's assessment of this more.

First of all, look at the result. Where are the great creators in comics today?

They're working in other forms of media that compensate them for their talent, creativity, and... success. Comic Books got what it deserved for treating it's talent the way that it did. I'm surprised people even still read Marvel and DC, when really ALL it has going for it, is what these legendary creators gave them. 

Comic Books in the basic state are over simplified and kind of childish, but today’s comics are grotesquly incestuous in story and superficially grandiose in form, like a blurred copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy.... who is there to breathe life into it?

WHY would anyone be there to breathe life into it?

Is this really what everyone thinks is a successful business model?

I got MINE! F YOU! Is this really the American mentality toward greatness?

Stan did what a company man does - he promoted the face of the company as comics, and promised Jack and Steve better things to keep them around for as long as he could. Ditko saw through it and left, Kirby held out hope for longer, but eventually realized he’d been lied to as well.

Most of these early greats in comics were sons of immigrants who'd come to America with nothing... they weren't business savvy - they were artists.

But to hell with it… it’s all about the profit of the company. Let’s put kids back to work - they should KNOW better - and pay anyone we can less than we have to.

Those sweatshops work out well in third world countries… if those people don’t like it, they should start their own company! Let ‘em eat cake!

Comics, and their fans, have gotten exactly what they deserve.

Watered down garbage, created by people who'll never give there best to an ungrateful corporation.

 

I disagree with you on this topic and I will use a facet of my own past and current life as an example.  When I was embarking on my career I looked into the benefits of one career path versus another.  I entered into a profession that did not pay as much as my peers but I reap the benefits from once I retire.   Sure, a few of my friends travel around the globe, they drive amazing automobiles, own large primary homes and vacation residences among other things that most people "want."  I traded that life off for one where i get to retire in a little more than twelve years and I will be WELL taken care of in my retirement.  I will be young enough in my retirement to do whatever I want.  In fact, I could have accepted a deal that allowed me to retire at 52 instead of 55. 

No one held a gun to Ditko's or Kirby's head when it came to CHOOSING their career path.  They chose to do something they enjoyed but understood the trade off. They understood the deals that they made.  In post WWII America there was far more opportunity than there is now especially for Kirby who was a veteran.  If he found the deal unsatisfying he could have easily embarked on an entirely different career path or switched to working for another company which both artists did.  They sought out the best deals that the could find offered at the time for their line of work.  That's the deal they made when they decided to work for Marvel.

I firmly believe that while Ditko was extremely talented and Kirby was extremely talented, that neither would have been great without the Marvel machine.  

[500Club]

2 hours ago, bronze johnny said:

4 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Stan has said that over the last year or so of Ditko's time on the book, he'd just drop off the pages and he wouldn't even know what he was getting. Yet 'Stan Lee' was still listed as the writer on the book. So it got even worse as far as the fair division of labor towards the end...

Mmmm.... man, I just can't disagree with everyone's assessment of this more.

First of all, look at the result. Where are the great creators in comics today?

They're working in other forms of media that compensate them for their talent, creativity, and... success. Comic Books got what it deserved for treating it's talent the way that it did. I'm surprised people even still read Marvel and DC, when really ALL it has going for it, is what these legendary creators gave them. 

Comic Books in the basic state are over simplified and kind of childish, but today’s comics are grotesquly incestuous in story and superficially grandiose in form, like a blurred copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy.... who is there to breathe life into it?

WHY would anyone be there to breathe life into it?

Is this really what everyone thinks is a successful business model?

I got MINE! F YOU! Is this really the American mentality toward greatness?

Stan did what a company man does - he promoted the face of the company as comics, and promised Jack and Steve better things to keep them around for as long as he could. Ditko saw through it and left, Kirby held out hope for longer, but eventually realized he’d been lied to as well.

Most of these early greats in comics were sons of immigrants who'd come to America with nothing... they weren't business savvy - they were artists.

But to hell with it… it’s all about the profit of the company. Let’s put kids back to work - they should KNOW better - and pay anyone we can less than we have to.

Those sweatshops work out well in third world countries… if those people don’t like it, they should start their own company! Let ‘em eat cake!

Comics, and their fans, have gotten exactly what they deserve.

Watered down garbage, created by people who'll never give there best to an ungrateful corporation.

 

Bravo! Agree and I will add to the point you made about how Kirby and Ditko weren't business savvy in relation to "work for hire," especially given the time period they lived in. Does anyone believe these guys had attorneys sitting next to them when they read and signed these contracts? Did these guys even retain attorneys back then? It's easy to say that they should have gotten attorneys back then to review the contract - be interesting to see how Marvel and other companies would have viewed that back then. Think about the time they lived in and the fact that these guys were artists and not business men. Consider whether they really understood the long term consequences of work for hire. Also consider whether there were any other option for them back then- did comic book companies provide alternatives to work for hire arrangements? Easy to say that they could have just found something else- Madison Avenue? Back then when you didn't fit the ethnic and/or religious background? {b}Let's not get caught up in drawing conclusions based on how things work today to what things were like back then.{/b] Sadly, Kirby, Ditko, and many others had to go through their experiences in order that those who followed them reap the benefits of creator owned artwork.

Indeed.  And, yet, Chuck's whole post is written from a 2018 perspective.  In fact, he relates the state of the industry today back to my initial post discussing how things were in 1963.  Unfortunately, he's off base.   The industry is the way it is today not due to creators' rights, but simply due to economics.  We have at present an industry that simply cannot compete with other forms of entertainment, in terms of engagement and unit cost per hour.  The average comic is $3.99.  Netflix is $12/mo.  Video games are $60.  Many phone and tablet apps are free.  That has led to declining sales, declining revenue, less ability to compete for and pay artistic talent, and thus, as Chuck notes, the great talents find better pay in other media.

 

On to your post, and its 'did anyone consider...?' theme.  Yes.  I did.   My whole post was based on the perspective of the work-for-hire artist in 1963.  Not the 2018 fanboy, but the guy looking for work in 1963.  So, would they have considered attorneys? Of course not.  Their perspective would have been simply to get a job and be paid per page drawn.  Maybe there was health and other benefits, but, let's face it, this was a hire as simple as some of our first summer jobs.  Consider long term consequences of work for hire?  Give me a break.  In 1963, they're simply looking to get a job illustrating periodicals for 8-12 year olds.  First, you'd have needed psychic powers to conceptualize where this would be in fifty years, and second, I suspect if you'd challenged Kirby to consider that far flung a future, he'd have said 'get lost, buddy, I have a family to provide for right now'.  Consider whether there was any other option for them?  No need.  We all do it automatically, so they would have as well in 1963.  If they could have gotten better pay at DC, or in advertising, I'm sure they would have.

Bottom line:  these guys were simply workers with a certain skill engaged in employment par for the standards of the time.  As you say, let's not get caught up in drawing conclusions based on how things work today.  In fact, there's probably employment dynamics today that no one is bemoaning, but, in fifty years, will be a topic of hot debate the same as this issue.

[500Club]

57 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

1 hour ago, 500Club said:

‘Blame’ is the wrong word.  From Steve’s perspective, ‘credit’ is the way to look at it.  As you say, he lived life true to himself.  For him, unlike a lot of people, Objectivist or not, money wasn’t important.

I'm just saying that people attribute a lot more to his Objectivist beliefs than is warranted. A lot of it was just his personality and personal values.  Other Objectivists in his shoes would not have necessarily made the same life choices he did. 

Oh, I agree, and in fact, more is made of Objectivism than it deserves, in that it's simply at its core, a natural state of being true to yourself and your personality.  Most Objectivists, and people in general, would have valued money more and seclusion less, but Steve had different values, and he lived true to them.