Ok, direct access is allowed in 45 states (not sure on that figure but lets say your right). There are still stipulations and many would debate if it is truly %100 direct access. However, the argument is still irrelevant because what matters is INSURANCE reimbursement. Yes a patient can choose to see a PT before a GP or what not but they will have to pay out of pocket. That sort of kills any incentive to go straight to a PT unless you don't have insurance or unless your deductible is through the roof. In addition, there's probably not too much knowledge of the PT profession/prestige behind PT to motivate someone to go see a PT first. I think that the American population's knowledge is growing but prestige happens to be quite correlated with salary. If I were just a normal American citizen I wouldn't think that someone who made 60k/yr was all that special. Anyway, I got off topic.
In regards to DPT vs. MPT vs. BSPT there isn't much logic being used in my opinion. It is not a fair comparision to say that there is no pay difference between DPT and MPT because MPTs do have a lot more experience. An accurate comparision would compare a new MPT grad salary vs. a new DPT grad salary. But at the same time it would be illogical to say that a MPT is more likely to get hired because they have more experience than a DPT. That isn't the point, we are trying to eliminate extraneous variables which means we should only be looking at education (not experience). Now the T-DPT kind of changes things. Since it exists, I would probably go MPT then T-DPT when an employer pays for it. But, I don't know how efficacious the T-DPT is, it may be a blow off degree that just teaches one how to read research articles and makes money for the school in which you are enrolled.