There are some areas for which a PhD is a pre-requisite. I currently work at a synchrotron. Accelerator operators, engineers etc. do not all have PhDs, but when you get to the science side I think every single member of the science team has a PhD.

A PhD is the most straightforward path towards involvement in science that needs big, expensive, sophisticated equipment.

The point is to train you to be a scholar, someone who can do original research in the field, as is expected of university professors. To that end, a PhD program includes coursework advanced enough to bring you up to the current state of the research in the subject, and a period of research apprenticeship with your advisor, where you begin to contribute to the field yourself. That's valuable enough to devote four years to if scholar is the job you want. I wouldn't recommend it for any other purpose. Way too much pain.

Lots of people say they got something out of a PhD. Even if they are all biased, doing a PhD is a culturally acceptable way of being unemployed and goofing off.

http://lemire.me/blog/2015/02/25/hopeless-ones/

You are not unemployed when doing a PhD, nor are you goofing off. Not sure if your comment was supposed to be sarcastic somehow, but you are very misinformed.

I would say you are underemployed.

You are underpaid, but I would not say underemployed. The benefit society gains from a PhD is high, mainly because of the training students get from doing a PhD. But there is an over-supply of students who want to do PhDs as opposed to the budget for science, so the pay is very low.

I think lots of people get the idea of PhD is worthless learning from PhD graduate from some mediocre varsities. Getting PhD from any elite school (like MIT in this case) or elite research group is absolutely priceless.

well i wanted to be a professor so getting a phd seemed like the most direct route.

de Broglie's are rare.