I think a caveat to all this that regardless of one's persuasion of Psy.D. vs. Ph.D., this forum statistically weights the "economic validity" as being the primary motive to sway one from a Psy.D. It is fairly common for scientists to only value what we can see in p-values or t-tests, however, other variables that can't be easily quantified such as socio-economic barriers that potentially hinder a person from gaining admissions to a Ph.D. program are just as valid as considering if one should take on a degree only if it yields a certain potential profit. An applicant should definitely know the potential pitfalls of the Psy.D., especially with programs that take advantage of the training model and rampant admission quirks. However, as many of us know, not all Psy.D.'s are alike, and there are many first, second, third, etc. tiered Psy.D. programs as there are Ph.D. programs. So, leaving that argument alone, there are very real variables that Psy.D. programs do play to that some Ph.D. programs don't, such as easier admissions standards (again, not all are the same, and many Ph.D. programs also suffer the same fate as Psy.D.).
I think its hard for many of us to see the value in both paths, and if there are people in here that do, the comments seem otherwise. If we are going to claim that "we are just providing the data"...remember, your "data" also has an opinion attached to it. No one can argue against many of the data available, but there are variables that never see the light of day such as the socio-economic issues, learning disabilities applicants may have, applicants of varying undergraduate training/ prior careers, and much more. Just taking a random sample of programs in Texas, Florida, Illinois, New York, California would yield the standard APA data and the aforementioned variables I have described. These are important, these are things I think many programs may not even factor or aware of a lot of times (I know a very small amount of programs I have seen this in, medicine is a field that commonly provides these measurements FYI).
At the end of the day, you may not financially be able to afford the Psy.D., somebody else may have, that is their decision, if they have an idea of how they will get adequate employment, again these are variables you may not be privy to, maybe an applicant has an overall poor academic background for XYZ reason, again, if being a psychologist is their goal, then perhaps the Psy.D. is going to be a likely and viable path for them.
Also, I am curious, are there any data that provides a considerable argument that Psy.D. programs produce more incompetent clinicians vs. Ph.D. programs? I know that there are EPPP stats, etc. but are there any data available that accurately measures as to why there may be lower EPPP rates in Psy.D. vs. Ph.D., or is the argument "Psy.D. programs are inherently less than" a subjective perspective of the data?