I was initially going to disagree that copywriters get paid in the same range as scientists, but the numbers in the US are roughly similar from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Indeed.

-Indeed average copywriter annual pay [0] is $54,998 USD, versus a staff scientist's [1] at $69,091 USD

-BLS median copywriter pay for 2021 [2] was $69,510 USD, versus a medical scientist's [3] at $95,310 USD

I'm surprised that the median annual salary difference is only roughly $15,000 to $25,000 USD in favor of working as a scientist, considering the additional years doing a Master's/PhD, whereas copywriter jobs often don't need even a Bachelor's. In addition, I would've guessed that the median copywriter salary would have been far lower, as my perception was that there is a far greater supply of candidates for copywriter jobs than scientist jobs in the US (maybe this is offset by fewer scientist positions?). Alternatively, maybe the numbers are missing important contextual information in some way.

[0] https://www.indeed.com/career/copywriter/salaries

[1] https://www.indeed.com/career/staff-scientist/salaries

[2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/writers-and-...

[3] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/med...

> In addition, I would've guessed that the median copywriter salary would have been far lower, as my perception was that there is a far greater supply of candidates for copywriter jobs than scientist jobs in the US (maybe this is offset by fewer scientist positions?)

Probably, but given that ~20% of Americans are functionally illiterate, while ~40% have a college degree, the supplies might not be too different. Reading and writing are also skills which are neither prestigious nor especially lucrative, while scientists of any kind are esteemed pretty highly.

The scientists I know see it as almost a vocation. They want the prestige of having their names in journals and the feeling that they're helping advance human knowledge. I can't really blame them... I class it as a bit like development in the way they undervalue their skills so that they can get it.

I guess the other side of it is that the people paying scientists really don't know if their grant money will pay off so they want to hedge their bets on costs (eg salaries)