Well: IMHO, "company bullshit" really has nothing to do with the word "company"; you could as easily substitute "interpersonal" / "human" / "team dynamics". People are the hardest part of any problem...
...but also the most rewarding. For me, no, the money would not be enough to put up with the bullshit, not by itself. Much more compelling is the idea that multiple people working together as an effective team can build things of greater scope, quality, and importance than one person can working alone.
Of course, if "people here can't work together as an effective team" - e.g. because the culture is overly cutthroat, or the environment is interruption-prone, or project teams are demotivated by a lack of trust / agency / autonomy, or impossible deadlines are the norm - well, if those things are part of the bullshit, no amount of money will make that enjoyable and rewarding.
In such an environment, what's a rational strategy? Probably to save up a bunch of money, to the point where the next job search can be motivated by things other than immediate financial need, and quit once that's achieved. (Hence "rest and vest" behaviour, which is often a huge red flag about the organization and not the individual person.)
Type 1 is characterized by broad policies and processes indiscriminately applied that may not always make sense at the ground level. This type is not only inevitable, but is actually necessary for a company to work at scale—once you get into the hundreds and thousands of employees it just doesn't work leave things to each individual manager's judgement as it won't be fair, and it will eat a lot of cycles.
Type 2 is characterized by the people problems you mention, including all manner of incompetent management, and other inefficiencies that prevent the essential work from being done properly. While some amount of this is also inevitable, it's generally avoidable by competent management as long as the org doesn't release a tipping point of dysfunction at which point all the competent folks start to leave for greener pastures.
Distinguishing between type 1 and type 2 can be very tricky, especially for low-level employees at a large company where they won't have the experience or the visibility to make an informed read. However making the distinction is super important if you want to be upwardly mobile in large companies. There is a level of bullshit you will need to put up with anywhere, you just need to be able to understand what is worth putting up with for the greater good and what is not.
By company bullshit, I just mean the standard bullshit that comes w/ any job. As an entrepreneur, I was accustomed to solving problems my way. When I became an employee, it took me a while to understand that just because I could make an impact in some way, that doesn't mean the company would be interested in letting me do it that way. Basically it's hard to go from being in full control to doing it someone else's way.
...but also the most rewarding. For me, no, the money would not be enough to put up with the bullshit, not by itself. Much more compelling is the idea that multiple people working together as an effective team can build things of greater scope, quality, and importance than one person can working alone.
Of course, if "people here can't work together as an effective team" - e.g. because the culture is overly cutthroat, or the environment is interruption-prone, or project teams are demotivated by a lack of trust / agency / autonomy, or impossible deadlines are the norm - well, if those things are part of the bullshit, no amount of money will make that enjoyable and rewarding.
In such an environment, what's a rational strategy? Probably to save up a bunch of money, to the point where the next job search can be motivated by things other than immediate financial need, and quit once that's achieved. (Hence "rest and vest" behaviour, which is often a huge red flag about the organization and not the individual person.)