> for a field at steady state 1. What you mean by "steady state" really matters. 1a. There can be fields that are totally stagnant in terms of huge new intell

> for a field at steady state 1. What you mean by "steady state" really matters. 1a. There can be fields that are totally stagnant in terms of huge new intellectual advances but where the student population is exploding. 1b. There can be fields that are experiencing precipitous decline in enrollment while the intellectual and commercial field itself is in hyper-growth (CS has experienced 2 of these moments in its short history). 1c. There can be fields that are stagnant in every respect but which, for whatever reason, attract lots of funding relative to the number of occupied seats. "ML + X" for all X was like this a half decade ago or so, even for values of X in stark decline. 2. CS is growing much faster than 2x. Or at least was for the last 5-10 years. 3. Most importantly, in CS, R1 is probably the very worst type of job for a phd-holder looking to do science. You get the pay of a professor, more stress than industry, are dependent on a system that horribly exploits IC labor, and are absoutely beholden to the politics of pretty ineffectual funding agencies. R2 or teaching track CS jobs are super chill, very stable, and often pay not too much worse than R1. Industry positions come with WAY more money and often more prestige/resources.