In general the one regular report I hear from academics is that it was a waste of their time in the first place and that they would have been better off spending those two-six years in industry anyway. Academia is a fucking scam.
However, people with PhDs have a much easier time getting promos at commercial places. They get a built in assumption of high competency, especially if the PhD is from a highly regarded institution.
But if your intention with a PhD is to become an academic, and you want to spend your time teaching or doing research, besides being necessary it's also very worthwhile. Or if you just really enjoy learning and don't care so much about salary when you're done, then it's extremely fulfilling.
They're interesting part is that these things change with time. Academia might have been the best option for a fundamental AI researcher in the 1980s.
I don't know what the salaries are, but there is actually a private archaeological industry which services the need in many countries to do archaeological excavations prior to construction.
I think you're describing a system where stagnation is allowed momentum, because perpetual innovation of ideas and the people promoting them can be stymied by "tenure".
Is this what you mean?
If you got an ML degree from University of Alabama, You have a vastly different experience than someone who got theirs from Harvard or MIT. It has its place, as with all things, but how many of the AI/ML grads with go work at Google or OpenAI? Not many.
A degree does not guarantee you success, but in some cases, it is a barrier to entry (Physicians).
"Every rich person I've met has said money doesn't matter." Okay, but there's only one way for them to prove it...
as a CS/SWE, only go for post-grad if convenient (e.g. Some schools had a 4+1 program for a MS. That extra year probably does pay off), if you have a very specific topic you want to work in, or if you want to work in acedemia specifically.
There's a reason SV is hiring out of academia: because they can't hire the same minds out of a 4-year program, and certainly not off the street. In this case it shows the value of those programs that got them there, so for these former academics to report, as OP is suggesting, that it was a waste of time/money seems to hold no logic.
I half agree. The degree holds some value (and for some schools they can even influence the curriculum to their needs), but value proposition comes more from a supply of people who 1) have sole semblance of fundamentals 2) an ability to see a long term study through (which is why every job, even many that don't need a degree, put up a Bachelors as a requirement when supply > demand) and most importantly, 3) aren't a training cost for the company itself.
I'm sure well chosen apprentice could be trained by a company for a single year and would be comparably productive to any new grad, but no one really wants to train talent directly. With academia right there there is no need to, at best you have a set, 3 month internship to Gauge value. It's the economically best decision (arguably. If everyone wants to make offers of 200k to a top student instead of pay 80k for an apprenticeship, is it truly worth it?), but not necessarily the best from a company quality standpoint. But we know which of those 2 win out 9/10 times.