I dunno, spending 8-10 years in the right seat of a regional at the financial expense of one's family and financial solvency, sounds like a religious argument to me. The idea one should be independently wealthy/parental/spousal/retirement subsidized in order to pursue a regional job is also rather dishonest. I keep hearing that there's more than one path to the right seat of a major airline (as a military guy, I generally agree with that notion), but in practicality I think that's rather intellectually dishonest advice for the majority of applicants.
So to what degree are we talking past each other, is the relevant question. The formative process to qualify for a lucrative mainline job isn't expected to be easy, but it shouldn't be martyrdom either. Otherwise, rational players pursue other vocations (medical, financial et al). By perusing the regional sub-forum on here, it appears there is a consensus over there by those who haven't yet quit, that the regional compensation structure is not financial sacrifice, but financial martyrdom. So, who's telling the truth. I'm inclined to believe those for whom that job is their actual livelihood. To me, the position of someone who doesn't depend on their job's income in order to live, is not a particularly credible or useful position to draw vocational advice from.
Ultimately this is just a job, not a religion. The idea one must subject oneself to financial martyrdom in order to be deemed genuine in the pursuit of this job is laughable fanaticism from those with a chip on their shoulder about their own bouts with the "pay your dues" religion.