I think that you and your peers have very realistic expectations of the post-PhD landscape. And I think that these expectations are exactly what this article (

I think that you and your peers have very realistic expectations of the post-PhD landscape. And I think that these expectations are exactly what this article (and the similar article by Benton that was linked therein) is trying to cultivate. Because I don't think that this expectation really exists in the US. I have close friends who are pursuing PhDs in mathematics and literature and have consequently met a great many PhD candidates in both of those fields. Almost all of them, with few exceptions, expect that they will get a good post-doc position and, following that, will get a good tenure track position. They have no backup plans, they have no skills that could provide them a job in anything but academia, and it's not hiring. But I think this criticism is the same that HN readers have, just better expressed. When I read these criticisms here, I don't take away a pervasive thought that people believe a literature PhD (for example) to be worthless on its own. Instead, I see a lot of criticism of the expectation that one would get a PhD and everything would simply work out. I'm sure that there are some HN criticism that a literature PhD is inherently worthless. But I think (and hope) that this is the distinct minority. But I do see a lot of messages critical of the fact that one spent x years working on a PhD and has developed no skills beyond the ability to critically analyze Beowulf and has no backup plan if the job market for fine arts PhDs was poor (and it is). And while the tone may be exceptionally callous, this expectation and this behavior should be criticized.