I've worked in academia for almost all of my adult life, although in CS/LangSci not in molecular biology. Either I got lucky or it is some other reason, but I have not had the same experience.

> She works ~2x longer and 10x harder than I do

Now, I don't know how long you work but most academics I've met do it because they love it. Mind you, it's not like there is no pressure to stay on top of your game, and endless administration tasks do eat up a lot of your time that you would like to spend otherwise. But I know a lot of people who work at the weekends not to make up for lost time, but because their work is their passion.

> - PIs can make your life absolutely miserable for no reason, and it's difficult to switch labs if you're otherwise making good progress.

That is true, although you can also have awful superiors in a regular job. And it's not easy to just switch jobs for a lot of people when that happens. Also, I've personally never had any issues whatsoever with my PIs, so the opposite can also be true: PIs can be very supportive and interested.

> - The pay is poor, and professors often joke about how cheap PhD students and postdocs are.

Not true in my experience, the pay in academia has always been more than acceptable. But again, I was in CS/LangSci, and I know that for instance in the humanities, pay is lower for similar jobs.

> - A significant amount of time is wasted on internal politics, such as deciding whose name appears on a paper and in what order.

In all my many years, there was never any case where the author issue has ever come up. Also, perhaps I was lucky (again), but I've almost only experienced collegiality across groups in the places I worked. I wouldn't say that "internal politics" is a bigger issue in academia than in industry.

> - Pursuing irrelevant papers just to secure tenure is common.

The pressure to publish is real, but irrelevant papers do not really help you a lot. Your time is better spent doing work that can make an impact. That said, not all ideas that you pursue lead to amazing output, and you cannot afford to let half a year of work go to complete waste. So, yeah, if worst comes to worst, you might opt for a lower-tier conference and squeeze at least some insight out of your failed work, but it is not common to specifically try to create irrelevant papers.

Also, over the years, the acceptance rate for main conferences has become increasingly hard to get over, as competetion is ever increasing. So, you do want your work to be relevant, or else it's not much you'll get out of it.

> - Bullying from other academics happens more often than most are willing to admit.

I've read about this on the internet to the point where I believe it's real. However, I cannot personally attest this, as my work places have always been different.

> - PIs often treat their subordinates like high school students, expecting them to work weekends for "research" and forgo vacations.

Not true in my experience, I and my colleagues, including PI, have always tried treating students and other group members respectfully. There is, of course, a certain expectation regarding your work ethics, but for the most part, I've never heard of anyone demanding from subordinates to forego vacations.

The only thing I can think of is when the deadline for an important conference comes up and everyone's really trying to get some final experiments done in time. Then it could happen that you're asking someone if they could do it, but I've also been in situation where the answer was "no" and that was, of course, accepted.

> - It's true that many join academia because they didn't know what else they could do.

Probably true.

> It's exhausting, and there are better ways to make a living.

"Better" is completely subjective. I loved working in academia but that doesn't mean that there were plenty of situations where I didn't like something and loudly complained.

The one thing that's missing on your list and which for me was the deal breaker in the end was that, depending on where you are, the prospect of getting tenure is very vague and insecure. When I was young and independent, I didn't care if I only had a two-year contract. But as you mature and eventually start a family and/or buy a house, your responsibilities and priorities shift.

So, in the end, I am one of the 40% or whatever that left academia, but it was not the work itself that I minded, it was the lack of a secure future. I mean, as secure as any future could ever be...