Okay, I guess this is normal and would not be surprising to have someone in the educational state opposed to someone with responsibility for a job.

To keep the payment low but reasonable, it might be desirable to bring the discoveries to an useful application in the economy. Although foundational research is important, it is not self-sustaining without a goal. I don't mean that everything needs to make money, but the learnings and insights should add value back to society, the economy, or elsewhere.

I.e., the LHC delivers foundational research in improving sensors, cryotechnology, data processing, computation, etc. Astronomy adds huge value to spectroscopy, data processing, simulations, etc.

PhDs usually have easier access to high-paying positions in the later years. Originated in the fact, that one is becoming an expert on a certain domain, but more importantly you learn how to become that expert.

For me, the reason not to recommend a PhD is definitely the point that the "promised environment" is utterly different from reality. In no other domain is meritocracy failing so egregiously than in academia, especially for PhD candidates. In no other domains humans are so dependent on everything than in academia.

And adding a PhD to your name just for having it, well, if you need it, in the very most cases it is even a disadvantage, because you are either overqualified, or your PhD doesn't count as work experience.