Why aren't scientists richer? I am an undergrad right now and I want to go into research. My question is not about whether I will be able to become rich (I am okay with a small life), but more from a civilization perspective. 

For the progress of a civilization, shouldn't it focus more on increasing its scientific knowledge? So shouldn't the civilization focus on getting more people into scientific research?  Why is this not the case? Why is the simple application or mixing together of scientific principles more valued that the actual creation of scientific principles? In the long run won't this lead to a reduced pace of scientific progress? 

Most people want to be the next Zuckerberg or Kalanick, Gates or Jobs, but isn't their contribution to Society's progress minuscule compared to say that of Shannon or Hamming? Shouldn't society encourage more Shannons and Hammings rather than Kalanicks or Zuckerbergs? I fully realize the importance of Kalanick or Jobs in the progress of civilization, but it seems to me that society values them much more than it does Shannon, heck most of Society does not even know who Shannon is! Yes the iPhone is wonderful, but it is pretty meaningless compared to Information Theory. Isn't this huge bias adversely affecting society and its ability to move forward? 

Also, if people like Shannon or Hamming had access to more resources, won't they use it to fund more research rather than say waste it on some big house / yacht etc? We have huge poverty in this world, many children die, who knows how many Einsteins civilization might be losing? If scientists had more resources, won't they focus on reducing this? In the poverty present in the world greed plays a role, but isn't a larger cause of it simply lack of access to enough resources? Won't faster scientific progress solve this problem ? 

What is the benefit of society following this policy? From my perspective this will only harm society in the long run due to reduced progress. I am assuming that my thinking is flawed, but could you help me understand why I am wrong?

PS: If this is not a suitable question please remove it. I might be able to get an answer to this someplace else, but I wanted an answer from a scientist.
Your fundamental mistake is to assume that our civilization is run with goals.  

It is simply not the case that we have a well-coordinated world of that type.  Instead, the allocation of money and political power are tightly intertwined, and the resources that are devoted to science are determined by the interplay of political struggles and economic markets.  Those produce very different outcomes in different places and times, from the fairly high investment in science in places like 1950s and 1960s America to the dismally low investment in science in, say, the mid-Ottoman empire or contemporary Somalia.  

Arguments such as the one that you put forth must contend against many other arguments, including people's need for food, shelter and security, their desire for power over others and to advance other causes (wise or foolish), etc.  Right now, scientists are not rich, and if you wish to change that fact, you should not look to science to bring about such a change.