Everything in life boils down to perspiration at some point.
There are loads of professional teachers, professional medics, professional sanitation workers, etc. who just turn up, do the job and go home. Some may and do work long hours for little reward, but a lot don't. There is a culture in academia that you may, sometimes, when you really need to, you may take the weekend off. Or Sunday, at least.
That said, we are producing far more Ph. D.s than we can employee. I have had a 30+ year career in industry. I have watched margins tighten and good friends get laid off as more and more is offshored. I doubt that this will end well for the next generation. Not everyone will be a "winner." But those who invest in developing their skills will, on average, do much better than those who do not.
I think one cause might be that "the enterprise" has very little to offer in terms of ideals. Those jobs that actually change the world and help a lot of people usually are out of your reach if you choose the wrong education (like computer science). Being "the man that uncovers the truth" (a scientist) seems much more appealing than "earn a lot of money being a cog in a machine that competes with other machines".
I admit, it's just anecdotal. When I see my friends who work at Microsoft, it doesn't seem like the fact that they're working at such a large, influential company excites them. After all, the "up or out" system either drags them out of the company or to some managerial position where there's even more of the "cog in a process" feeling as you spend most of your time presenting your team's results to your superior and the other way around.
So compare: in one field, you start earning a median $65k at age 22 with only a bachelor's degree, and in the other, you start earning $65k in your mid to late thirties, after a bachelor's, a PhD, and often at least one post-doc. Everything before that is "low-pay grinding", except that the academic definition of "low-pay" ranges from lower-middle class ($25k-$30k for the better-paid grad-students and worse-paid post-docs) to taking on debt (the humanities).
A median means that half the CS grads made less than 65k. Tenure track also comes with some eventual benefits you won't receive with a bachelor's in CS. Let's be clear about what we're actually comparing.
This is false.
For example, X% could make exactly 65k and only the lower ((100 - X) / 2)% would make less.
...where X \in (0, 100]
However I also doubt that many CS grads at all are making significantly less than $65k. Those that are making appreciably less than that are almost certainly not working in the field, or they are not working in the US. I wager that the salary distribution of CS grads working in the field in the US is pretty damn tight.
Granted, the job market was crap and I make 6 figures now, but there are still plenty of sub 40k programming jobs out there and people happy to take them.
That's not how medians work
Your assuming salaries are not inflated and that the ratio of people reporting salaries is constant at all income ranges and the reported numbers are accurate. I doubt any of those are true. So, IMO to observe a 65k median suggests the actual median is below 65k.
PS: Don't forget grad students count as recent CS grads and there generally not making anywhere close to 65K.