I joined a non-tech company as their first data scientist, and am now tasked with building up the data science efforts of the company. Your comment is really ringing true, though I've found the company here to be generally great to work with in terms of their flexibility. Funny enough, it took me months of working with the IT department to get a VM with 8-cores and 64 GB of RAM, or the ability to spin up AWS instances (none of the analysts at the company had ever asked for that). I'm happy with it though, it's a fascinating challenge and I'll admit at times I feel a bit in over my head.
In my experience, many companies are wanting to hire a lot more data scientists (and paying them six-figure salaries to boot), when what they really are looking for are what has traditionally been called a "data analyst" position. I.E., the entire sum of the job is Excel reporting and basic statistics, but instead wrapped in some "Machine Learning" marketing language.
As opposed to more long-term focus on what business problems can be solved by carefully cleaning data, building models, testing predictive power, and then deploying these models into production. Which obviously takes a lot more time, a lot more effort focusing on a single problem, and doesn't have nearly as many immediate deliverables that higher-ups can open their Outlook inbox and see. Naturally they then wonder why they are paying such a premium for someone who doesn't bring as many deliverables to the table as their 60-70k analysts. And then the data scientist wonders why he's spending most of his time sending Excel attachments. Definitely more of a problem in non-tech companies.