A master's degree is almost certainly worth less than than a year of full-time work experience on your resume.
So, the master's is potentially costing you triple - you're paying for it, you're not getting paid, your value as an employee isn't going up as much as someone who is working.
If you can't find a sponsor to pay for a master's degree, then I would assume that nobody values you having that master's degree.
>A master's degree is almost certainly worth less than than a year of full-time work experience on your resume.
For how long is this true? I mean, at this point, I have "more than a decade" of experience - and, considering, I think I'm likely to say 'more than a decade' even when I have two or three decades of experience; no reason to point out that you are old.
On the other hand, people leave their degree on their resume forever.
My point here is that years of experience seem to have, ah, a diminishing marginal return.
(that said, I'm almost certain that you are correct for the first five years of your career... /if/ you can get a good job without a degree and without experience, which in my very relevant experience, depends a whole lot on the shape of the job market at the time.)
Actually, as someone without a degree... the 'perishability' of my credentials is something I think about often. I mean, i wrote a book, [1] which is a pretty strong credential, but will one obsolete book mark me as 'middle class' 20 years from now? probably not. A masters degree would. (Now, would that masters, if it was fallow for a decade or two, get me a job? probably not by itself. But, my impression is that it keeps it's value as a credential longer than, say, my book, and certainly longer than work experience.)
So, the master's is potentially costing you triple - you're paying for it, you're not getting paid, your value as an employee isn't going up as much as someone who is working.
If you can't find a sponsor to pay for a master's degree, then I would assume that nobody values you having that master's degree.