> Sorry but I don't see how a software engineer (as me) is doing any work that is in the nature of human beings.
The simplistic answer is: you do work that is required (in some form, on some level) for "everything" or nobody would pay you to do it. You might be a few hops away from "putting food on the tables of people", but your work is somewhere in the network that supports society. Yes, there are some exceptions, some negative side-effects of the market approach, but they seem to be too small to make the whole system less effective than a carefully planned non-market system.
> The Covid crisis showed this to us (at least in Europe) : the people doing the real work are the people with the lowest incone and the lowest social protections.
That's mostly because that "real work" is usually work that you can easily train for. I still think we should pay better (and pay more people) to work e.g. in health care, but the reason why we don't is that it's easier to train a software developer to work in nursing than training a nurse to work in software development.
> So instead of giving good incomes to guys like me faking being useful to society, I'd prefer we give real incomes to useful people and let other doing "nothing" instead of having jobs with no "natural" purpose.
I know the feeling, but I don't think it's accurate or helpful. If you hate your job, find another one. Especially in software, there are plenty of jobs where you can very directly see the positive impact of your work on people.
> If we were in a society like that, I would have never chose being a software engineer, I'd rather be in the fields, growing food.
Who did more for society, the person growing food or the person developing a tractor?
The simplistic answer is: you do work that is required (in some form, on some level) for "everything" or nobody would pay you to do it. You might be a few hops away from "putting food on the tables of people", but your work is somewhere in the network that supports society. Yes, there are some exceptions, some negative side-effects of the market approach, but they seem to be too small to make the whole system less effective than a carefully planned non-market system.
> The Covid crisis showed this to us (at least in Europe) : the people doing the real work are the people with the lowest incone and the lowest social protections.
That's mostly because that "real work" is usually work that you can easily train for. I still think we should pay better (and pay more people) to work e.g. in health care, but the reason why we don't is that it's easier to train a software developer to work in nursing than training a nurse to work in software development.
> So instead of giving good incomes to guys like me faking being useful to society, I'd prefer we give real incomes to useful people and let other doing "nothing" instead of having jobs with no "natural" purpose.
I know the feeling, but I don't think it's accurate or helpful. If you hate your job, find another one. Especially in software, there are plenty of jobs where you can very directly see the positive impact of your work on people.
> If we were in a society like that, I would have never chose being a software engineer, I'd rather be in the fields, growing food.
Who did more for society, the person growing food or the person developing a tractor?