> What you, and most people championing the virtues of the slow and steady save, fail to consider is the time value of money (ie why those investments compound so much interest).

No, we (generally) have not failed to consider it. (I'm sure some have and some haven't, but it isn't an argument that holds much water anyway.)

In fact, I think it means more or less the opposite of what you have taken it to mean.

Time value of money calculations implicitly assume return on investment! If your time value of money calculation gives you a higher value for spending some money vs investing it, your valuation of the spending must be above market returns. It's fine if that is the output of your utility function some of the time, and you do have to make a personal decision about how much to spend vs save. But I would assert that most people should value retiring with non-zero savings, and highly paid tech workers have a lot of disposable income that spending provides minimal value.

No one here is suggesting you should eat cat food and live in a cardboard box to save for the future.

> Money today is worth more than money tomorrow is worth a truck load more than money in 67 years.

Time value of money is simply making the inverse of the same slow-and-steady statement: investing the money for 67 years will yield massive returns. Your core assumption is that spending the money today will yield above-market returns. And for your first dollars, I agree! Housing, food, clothing, and (some) entertainment give huge value, far above stock-market gains.

> Combined with the fact that, at least in my opinion, money when I'm young and healthy is also worth multiplicatively more than money post retirement.

"Young and healthy" and "post retirement" are not mutually exclusive, if you save. But they certainly are if you don't — it's hard to be healthy if you can't afford food or housing.

> I think most young people would rather be, and far better off with, saving that 10k annually you suggest

First, let me be clear that the 10k figure was just for illustrative purposes of compounding at average index return rates and is not a suggestion nor rule of thumb. It's a ton for someone making poverty wages and totally insufficient for someone pulling down $500k.

The general guideline is: save at least 15% of your take-home pay for retirement, starting 40 years before you intend to retire. I think this is even a little optimistic about stock market returns and would encourage saving at least a few percent higher than that.

Note that this recommendation still leaves 80-85% of your take home pay for current spending. We're not arguing about the first 30-50% of your spending on necessities (and some luxuries may be necessary to stay sane and happy), but the marginal value of that 85th percentile spending vs saving.

> to amassing a down payment on city property

Property investment is just one kind of investment. A first property certainly has special properties as far as taxes (at least in the US) and long-term expenses, but is not incompatible with "championing the virtues of slow and steady save." I would agree that saving for a down payment on property makes a lot of sense for many people.

> or equivalent investment in current quality of life rather than prepping for a lonely future.

The key word here is "investment." Your comparison is against stock market returns, so the quality of life stuff has to be really valuable to justify the lost income.

Why do you think your future will be lonely? If you really like working, great, but many people only work because they need the current income to fund their necessities. There are other avenues for socializing than work.