> but there are no jobs I can think of that a masters would qualify you for that a bachelors wouldn't.

Typically, community college faculty (and sometimes university lecturers) require a minimum of a master's in the field, and at least the first is as true of physics as it is generally.

In government it makes a difference in promotions and salary bands.

I have seen in electrical engineering some jobs advertise that they want someone with a masters, but really what they want is someone who understood and can use at least something from their undergrad and can be relied upon to exercise theory as opposed to someone who just passed.

I'm considering a masters in physics because I'm interested in possibly pursuing a Ph.D. there, but never got beyond 200-level in undergrad. The local university offers a physics MS that's basically a rebranding of their undergrad core, but at night to cater to working adults. It'd be cheaper to just take the undergrad classes, but that just doesn't fit into life, so I'm willing to pay for the privilege of being able to take them at night. (A Ph.D. program may never fit into real life either, but that's a different problem for a different day).

Some employers pay for higher education, but there is little ability for people to actually get that education. Many people in this thread do not value a masters specifically because they are not a good investment just looking at the price.

If the education system was different, more people would want them, and they would be more useful. See commenter below who notes that CS masters are usually quite useful but also are not employment gating and have many reasons to stay competitive with other programs.

A master’s in physics is usually a sort of consolation prize to people who do not finish their PhD. Like you said, you either need a BS or PhD.