This question is too broad, but I have a feeling it's a commonly asked one, so I'm going to try to answer it anyways.

To address your second question first: holding a PhD does not make a job candidate any more desirable for the vast majority of positions. Indeed, it can be a factor against the candidate, as they will be perceived as more expensive. For positions where a less-qualified candidate could also fill the role, being overqualified is rarely a good thing. Jobs that are specifically looking for a PhD will typically state that in the requirements. For example, "Masters required, PhD preferred" is a common one in certain parts of the banking sector. However, for entry-level positions (data entry, lower-level analyst roles, etc), you may be at a disadvantage.

Regarding your first question, though, you're being overly harsh on yourself. The process of earning a PhD is *significant* work experience; indeed, that's your main selling point when looking for your first job. Depending on what you did, you will have some or all of the following experience:

* Identifying, clearly stating, and figuring out how to address a problem - this alone qualifies you to be a consultant at any large firm; this is all they do, all the time, for different clients
* Project management
* Advanced technical writing - your thesis, academic publications
* Communication skills - working through the peer-review process
* Public speaking - presenting at conferences
* Experimental design - your research project
* The art of researching - the simple knowledge of how to properly find articles, sources, etc
* ...

Even better, you've been doing all that for four years. You should be selling every single one of those points as hard as you can when you move to industry.