this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
75 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
5028 readers
232 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're getting the big downvote but the pay difference is between Maxim, who is a postgraduate new to the field and relatively inexperienced, and a research scientist with the PhD who earns about 110k a year - 45 to 55 an hour on average. That is the payoff for the miserable pay rate now.
If you go blue-collar, you'll discover that apprentices also start at that kind of pay rate, which slowly increases as they get more experience, which is they key part that's missing from this conversation.
The "but they're working on curing children's cancer!!!1!" is just an emotional hook to generate moral outrage. There are plenty of PhDs getting 18 an hour researching weapons systems, but they don't make the news.
Working on curing childhood cancer is emotional because it's something that we as a society value collectively but clearly aren't compensating the work enough. Why should we pay a pittance to people who have 5+ years of training under their belt? Is it simply because they'll make more in the future? That sounds like a pretty exploitative system to me.
I offer myself as a case study. I've been on DSP for nearly 10 years, and could go back and do a biotech or digital forensics PhD - I have a first-class science honours, and could easily get an ART grant on that basis.
However, because of my disability I struggle with basic stuff around the house, keeping it clean and having clean clothes and good etc. My hot water system broke over a month ago and I've been having cold showers for 6+ weeks because I'm making slow progress organizing an electrician and plumber to get it fixed. Adding PhD work to that would only be worthwhile if the grant was well paid.
The first of those jobs is constructive and beneficial to both Australia and to humankind as a whole. The second is destructive and literally helps kill people. It's invalid to trivialise that difference down to "moral outrage" - in fact morality need not be involved at all - health research is a vital job I'd like to see rewarded better.
I respond with a hearty "bollocks" to all your statements. The Guardian is using the children's cancer statement as a hook to get you in to read their article, nothing more, nothing less.
Having said that, people on their way to PhDs should probably be paid more to entice them to do one if we are starting to get a shortage of PhDs around the place.
I am enthusiastically curious about why you claim that the curing of children's cancer being beneficial is "bollocks".
PhD students are already years past being "apprentices". You have to already done at least 4 years of study (3 year undergraduate + honours year at minimum) to start a PhD, and most will have done 5 or more (undergraduate + 2 year research masters)
I can't help it if it is a long and arduous path to the career that they have chosen. But the fact is, they're still in the education system and learning/ gaining experience at this point, just like apprentices.
I don't disagree that the pay is shit and that it could go up a bit if it is actively discouraging people to do their PhD. Being used as cheap labour is a problem for both apprentices and PhD students alike, it seems.