> The fact that this sort of crap pays so very much better than doing actual research that genuinely advances mankind's fundamental capability to arrange the un

> The fact that this sort of crap pays so very much better than doing actual research that genuinely advances mankind's fundamental capability to arrange the universe to our benefit is, to me at least, a low-level itch or irritant of moral indignation that I am unfortunately condemned to experience regularly due to growing up in the neoliberal era ;-). I share your indignation, but I suspect the relative difference in pay might not bother you so much if Professors and other people doing this sort of research had easy access to the middle class. I grew up in the 70s in San Francisco, and two of my friends dads were professors at SF State, one in Physics, and one in Communications. The physics professor owned a 4bedroom house in the inner sunset. The communications professor lived in West Portal. They had kids raised a family largely on one income, kept the old station wagon running. They weren't rich, but it was not a big problem being a professor. When that's the case, when someone who manages to get a PhD has a strong chance at a good position where he or she can do good research without massive time pressure, and you can buy something like a 4br house in a nice place and raise a family, then it's easy (well, easier) not to worry about who is living in the mansions in Pacific Heights. You might grouse a bit, but you in the end, the professors probably wouldn't trade places with them. To me, the moral indignation comes from a number of things: 1) elite PhD programs in the sciences often have attrition rates of 50%, 2) it's difficult to get (and keep!) a good job even if you make it through 3) the pay often isn't sufficient to buy a house or raise a family even if you're a winner on winner on winner (got into an elite program, completed program, got a tenure track job at a decent university) 4) congress's response to this is to declare a shortage of PhDs.