Getting a degree, particularly a PhD to do research, is hideously expensive in the US and rarely pays well relative to the cost, even for STEM.
Science in general is underfunded IMO, and from what I'm told competition for grants can be extreme. Society says they want the next Thomas Edison but they aren't willing to fund all the other failed light bulb designs to find him.
In that environment being an amateur scientist makes the most sense if you can swing it. Do something more lucrative to ensure prosperity and, if you're really passionate about something scientific and can afford the necessary equipment yourself, do it at home and blog about it.
Worth remembering that prior to modern funding mechanisms a lot (most?) of science was done by the independently wealthy gentry.
I agree competition for grants drives a lot of these problems, but getting a STEM PhD costs nothing at any remotely respectable institution. You will be spending 5+ years making less than you could, so you still may not come out ahead financially, but it's purely an opportunity cost not an actual cost. It's not uncommon either for people to bail with a free masters after 2 years.
I like the idea of making money first and then pursuing research, but I think for certain fields the only way to do much of anything would be to latch on as a research volunteer to an existing lab. Because the cost to run any experiments is just way too high, particularly if you have no shared equipment to begin with.
Alternatively, you could just start a PhD later in life. There are time limits on a bunch of the academic stages, but no clock really starts until after you've finished your PhD. I do think it would be a lot more comfortable to do a PhD once you've already financially established yourself, plus I think it produces a better culture when people aren't so attached to progressing up the academic ladder, like their life depends on it.
I think you're underestimating opportunity cost and overestimating how much grant money is spent on actual science rather than overhead costs like the university's 25% cut, head count, administration, conferences, and so on. The actual numbers are staggering. When I dropped out and first moved to SV (pre facebook IPO), I lived with a Mozilla undergraduate intern who made twice what my mom made as a neuroscience postdoc with decades of experience. An engineer making mid to senior level FAANG money and investing savings in an index fund, probably makes $1 million to $2 million more over a decade. For someone who doesn't make it into a tenured position, the life time difference in earnings is depressing to think about.
The barriers to entry are intimidating but not insurmountable - there are so many hidden idiosyncrasies and inefficiencies in academia that obfuscate the real cost and make it seem harder than it really is. Just look at the proliferation of hackerspaces with their capital equipment which, although not as expensive as some lab equipment, still runs in the tens of thousands per machine. It's just that we've been doing it this way for so long we can't imagine any other way.
Yes continuing on into postdoc is another 3+ years of opportunity cost, certainly it does add up quickly. But OP was implying that PhD students actually had to pay for their degrees which is not true. Most people will finish PhD before they are 30, if you compare to top SWE or finance jobs then sure there is expensive opportunity cost, but compared to entry level jobs more generally it really is not a huge deal. Most people doing a traditional STEM PhD wouldn't even be able to get one of the "high roller" jobs out of undergrad, because only a handful of majors are considered for the most part. A pure neuro undergrad wouldn't learn enough CS in school to be considered for a FAANG.
IMO postdoc is where people really start to get set back - you don't get benefits like free health insurance or subsidized housing anymore, you are getting older with additional life expenses, and you aren't getting a degree that can open doors to additional jobs anymore. You are basically just continuing to chase a university career at shit pay by the point you reach a postdoc. The worst part is that people are forced into postdocs almost immediately, because you literally can't get one after you are a certain number of years past graduation.
I don't disagree that as a society there are better ways. But as an individual actor unless you make an absolute killing with some start up or something there is no way you can afford to do proper biology research (for example). Perhaps if you're willing to move into some specific niche based on feasibility, but you'd have very little freedom in what questions you could ask this way. Beyond money there are also logistical questions surrounding care of animals or possible clinical collaboration, so unless you're happy doing in vitro work only this is another can of worms for someone attempting to be an independent researcher.
Getting a degree, particularly a PhD to do research, is hideously expensive in the US and rarely pays well relative to the cost, even for STEM.
Science in general is underfunded IMO, and from what I'm told competition for grants can be extreme. Society says they want the next Thomas Edison but they aren't willing to fund all the other failed light bulb designs to find him.
In that environment being an amateur scientist makes the most sense if you can swing it. Do something more lucrative to ensure prosperity and, if you're really passionate about something scientific and can afford the necessary equipment yourself, do it at home and blog about it.
Worth remembering that prior to modern funding mechanisms a lot (most?) of science was done by the independently wealthy gentry.