> do we say other types of engineering doesn't create the wealth? Yes, at least according to my strawman. Perhaps a better differentiator is creator/maker rath

> do we say other types of engineering doesn't create the wealth? Yes, at least according to my strawman. Perhaps a better differentiator is creator/maker rather than "engineer", since it can be (and has been) argued that farmers and assembly workers are creating wealth with their labor, too. > then do we say other types of engineering doesn't create the wealth? Is integrating a customer creating wealth (possibly?) I think this is, essentially, the question of if a service can be wealth creation. I think it's pretty clear that it possibly can, but it's not clear that it always does/must. As such, it's much harder to tell with a service if wealth/value is being created or just transferred, without careful examination, unlike with making something tangible (or at least visible, like computer code). > how about developing a feature that no-one uses (hmm). What about engineering that destroys value / wealth? I think you're talking about risk, which I mention in a different comment downthread. Fortunately, I don't think there are, in general, engineers/markers/creators who make zero or negative value exclusively (especially across their entire careers), and, more often than not, even if that happens within a single company, they didn't have the choice/control over the value. This last part is, perhaps, most relevant to the OP's original question. > I think one thing we need to remember is that engineers* have pretty amazing job security. And that's the crux of my point. I don't think that's true, though, and replaceability has been brought up elsewhere in the thread. As such, I fear I'm missing your point.