The most familiar argument is that the years spent earning a PhD carry an opportunity cost, compared to getting out into the workforce sooner, earning money, developing skills on the job, and building a career. Of course, the comparison is laden with assumptions about both career paths.

I believe there is an even bigger issue, that is not quantified or discussed, which is that PhD programs have extremely high attrition. Things can go wrong, which result in either having to quit or start over. Your advisor could lose finding, change jobs, or die. You could get sick. I know two people who got into serious ethical disagreements with their advisor. One had to lawyer up. At least when you read stories about jobs from hell in industry, you know that the person can at least walk away with the money that they already earned.

The non-PhD career path involves assumptions too. Having marketable skills, getting a lucrative job, moving up in the ranks, and putting money away, are all hypotheticals with their own survivor bias issues.

Disclosure: Physics PhD.