Engineering and accounting, your two comparison fields, don't suffer this problem.
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?2664517-W...
This is the tale of an ex-pro cover band player finding himself out of work, and coming to grips with the realization that the amateurs are not to blame, after all.
In those two fields, you can see that when supply is unfettered, compensation does fall. For example, accountants in Canada make fairly good money, but unlicensed "tax preparers" do not.
A better comparison for software engineers would be with interns working for free just to gain experience, freeware or FOSS.
Either my cell phone drops its signal, or it doesn't. Either my books balance and my checks clear, or they don't. In engineering and accounting, there are absolute and obvious measures of success.
When it comes to UI design, who decides when the design is successful? My boss? He approved the Pontiac Aztek. Lord help us all.
On the extreme end, you can say a design definitely doesn't work if a large percentage of users can't accomplish their goals or get frustrated in trying, but you can easily run into situations where half your users love a feature and will be frustrated without it, and half hate it and will have fits if you don't change it. Of course, these are the kinds of issues UI designers are paid to resolve, but there will rarely-to-never be total agreement between a designer, a client, and the client's customers on which aspects of a design work and which don't. Not so in development.
Yes, they've made an argument to society. And that argument is not entirely empty or "social engineering". With engineers, the argument is that the cost of, say, a bridge failure, is borne by not just the bridge builders but the people who might be driving on the bridge at the time of failure.
Thus society, and not just the individual paying for the work, has an interest in requiring that certain work is done competently.
It seems like a reasonable - it may be applied wrong -headedly or corruptly in places but for limited areas it seems entirely reasonable.
You could answer that argument but when you just label the argument "social engineer" it more like your engaging in this yourself by dismissing the argument without engaging it.
Is there any "reasonableness" to their position? You can decide for yourself. If you don't like the expression "social engineering," I'm perfectly happy with "Engineers manipulate public behaviour to solve the problem of how to be paid handsomely."
Whether that manipulation is in society's best interests is another argument, and yes I am avoiding it.*
* "Avoiding it" does not mean that I disagree with your point.
If a person were to say "engineers do an excellent job of educating the public concerning the need for their services to be regulated", well then the statement would skewed the other way - "Educate" is term with positive connotations.
Perhaps "engineer have pushed for the regulation of their field" would be close to neutral...
I don't know that the two are coupled in this manner. If I observe a politician making an election promise, is it only "manipulation" if he has no intention of attempting to fulfil his promise? What if he promises something and follows through with it? Is it manipulation if he personally doesn't care about the issue but is only doing it to get elected? What if he cares about some other issue, but promotes this issue to get elected so he can pursue another agenda he believes in?
I think the "validity" of influence is a very murky point to debate. There's what a politician believes, what a politician believes you believe, what they believe you might believe if told they believe it... Ultimately I find it easier to use the word "manipulate" to describe what happens when one person attempts to influence the behaviour of another for their own ends, whether I agree or disagree with those ends.
Getting away from politicians and back to regulated professions, Chiropractors and Doctors are both regulated professions. They seem to hate each other's practices. I believe each is sincere in arguing against the other, and I have a personal belief about the efficacy of one vs. the other, but I would also describe them both as attempting to manipulate public opinion about the other's profession.
I wouldn't say that one is manipulative and the other isn't purely because of my belief that one is right and that the other is wrong.
Ha! You're not looking hard enough. Check out the healthcare industry to find "Developer Challenges" where companies attempt to recruit programmers to compete for tiny prizes that won't even replace their lost billable time.
1. http://health2challenge.org/
The second example is the funniest, given that the $5000 challenge is intended to promote a platform developed with a $60 Million grant! Bill Gates was even on hand to help kick off the challenge.
But there are also people with track records at getting it right first time. Eventually the check signers (or the check signers bosses) work that out. (Hopefully before all the talented designers go broke.)
Reminds me a lot of this: http://weblog.muledesign.com/2010/10/dear_gap_i_have_your_ne...