Some great points.   Trying to evaluate your usefulness or productivity based on income doesn&#x27;t seem safe - nor does any connection with essentialness of what you do.  Even trying to connect it to numbers of people who could do the same thing seems to have sufficient exceptions to make me wary of turning that into even a lowly rule of thumb.<p>Increasingly I&#x27;m tending to agree with a group I would previously have dismissed as Ludicrously Optimistic Socialists -- though the S word may not be quite right there -- in that pretty much everything is going to have to change, in huge ways, if we&#x27;re to retain any kind of stability in the developed world.<p>I also work in the tech industry, as a consultant, but about 75% of my output is creative &#x2F; people-related -- but that still means my part of the industry is going to shrink by at least 25% in the near future as smart machines are brought online to do the non-people&#x2F;creative bits.  It&#x27;s fascinating to talk to people with various jobs, and ask them how long they reckon it&#x27;ll be before what they do will be done by a computer &#x2F; machine.  Most people are hugely optimistic about the level of sophistication they bring to the table, and their consequent relative safety in the workforce.