I don't know about the other professions, but his arguments in the case of major airline pilots show a complete lack of research or understanding about how aviation really works, which is typical of the mediocre, ignorant journalist writing for today's media.
His arguments carry no weight whatsoever. His first argument is that the job is fully automated. Any of us can see the absolute tripe in this argument. Essentially he is saying that the airplne does it all and there is little need for the pilot. On the contrary, the fact that there is an increasing level of automation on today's flight decks means that pilots have to have a deeper technical knowledge and understanding of on board systems, let alone have the ability to make the correct decision when things go down the tube. Accident and incident reports will show that pilots are still a very necessary commodity on the flight deck.
His second argument is the good old management argument of "the pilots are making us poor" The major airlines that are in financial trouble did not go bankrupt because of the pilots, by any stretch of the imagination. Years of mis-management, coupled with world events and a downturn in the economy fueled that one.
His third argument is that the average consumer wrongly places his trust in the pilots, when it's really the mechanics who deserve all the money because they're the ultimate life-savers. This is the most laughable of them all. In fact it makes him look like he wrote this article his first day in junior high, or at least shows a commensurate level of intelligence with that age group. The fact that it takes a lot of skilled teamwork to make the airline machine work seems to completely escape him.
Ray