Indy, one thing I'll say is we actually overwork, working to produce or appearing to produce what is nothing more than unnecessary crap, materials and services. The wants and needs of society could be adequately met with less people working less hours, and for a lesser period of their life. Then there is the rub, what do you do with all the surplus folks with nothing to do, and how do you meet the wants and needs of those surplus members of society, without creating anarchy. The Romans had a solution for their 50% unemployed, it was beer and circuses, or sign you up for 25 years in the legions. I don't think we have those options. What we have done is create "necessary" requirements for society, and that involves a large chuck of society shifting piles of sand from A to B and back again, well not quite as simple as that, but that is what many "workers" are really doing. They do feel they are being productive and making a positive contribution to their well being, and the good of society, when in fact they could sit in a park all day and society would be none the worse off. Our Protestant ethos requires us all to be doing our bit, or at least appear to be doing our bit.
If there are three "workers" number one is skilled productive and produces every thing required for all three. What do you do with the other two, for number two you create a overseeing position to keep track of number one, number three, well you have them making rules and regulations and shuffling paperwork to number two so he can correctly supervise number one. All three see themselves as productive, and all three share in the pie.

I suspect that both are correct
Loudmouth,
You're your assertion can't be argued. In my opinion as an under-educated, I maintain that education for education's sake is pointless. We educate morons who can not change despite saturation education.
We educate smart people with useless information so they're being held back. There's too much focus on the prestige of education rather than the benefits.
Over-hyping education & under-valueing pragmatism is the core problem.
People with an academic title are placed onto pedestals & the hype surrounding them is what prevents them from falling off & get exposed for what their usefulness really is.
In my work I spent a lot of time with Engineers who were stumped when their designs failed & you get one guess who fixed the problem.

Individual- Generally I agree with you. But at least Engineers are more practical than some other qualification- I like the idea that with Maths you can't pretend that you get the answer. But like you've indicated designing something in CAD is very different to building, disassembling, maintaining it- engineers do more designing than building- certain specialist trades do the building. "Finite Point Analysis" and other techniques are necessary to get approapriate attributes such as strength to weight- to avoid over-engineering.

Canem Malum,
It goes without saying that Engineers are well educated, well above average. Where many engineers fall below average is in the field of listening to people who know. But again engineers are no Robinson Cruisoes' there either, 99% of bureaucrats (all academic background) occupy the top positions in arrogance & ignorance. I suspect this to be due to the fact that once they enter through the doors of universities they're indoctrinated with the belief that they're above common sense & pragmatism. Once they leave Uni they're incapable of filtering indoctrination from reality. As a friend once said to me "the mind is not like a rubbish bin that can be emptied".

In my life I grew up with an 'engineering', hands on, family/father.
He self taught, as a youngster built such things as a welder from the generator of a German tank, (at risk of being killed if caught).
He went on to design 'real' things, which were ultimately part of the development of the North West of WA, and more so the mining boom.
He went on to create a 150 or so work force, engineering business.
We three sons went on to make our own fortunes in what we did best.
Being the oldest, I had learned the most, from my father.
Later going to uni, I realised what I already knew would hold me in good stead in my chosen profession and business life.
My brother was a clear example of the points made here.
In meetings with govt engineers and other similar people, he was shunned because he did not have a degree.
Being a proud Italian, as if to spit in their faces, he went to UWA as a mature age student, he qualified, with distinction.
Once back home the same stuck-up arse-holes suddenly noticed him, he never used his engineering degree, because like myself, I/we would design something, and if we needed something analysed we would engage the services of the appropriate discipline of engineering for answers.
He created a business rivaling and exceeding our father's, again with approx 130 odd staff, servicing the mining and road transport industry, still today.
In my experience I hired and fired by putting their CV's aside and merely having a conversation, sometimes seeking particular info from their CV.
I did not hire on qualifications, quite the opposite.
In fact I can say with pride, that the 'best' worker I had was, this will shock you, was of mixed blood.
Abo/European.
He was by far the best I had ever hired, for all the right reasons.
So for all you narrow minded people who have me as a stereotype, I tell the truth.
Just ask and I will elaborate, then you too will be enlightened with the truth