This is more truth-y than true. If occupational prestige drove employment, we'd all be firefighters. And, of course, when you actually look at occupational prestige figures, engineers crush lawyers. Really, there's no axis on which your hypothesis explains anything.
Which explains why politics - which by definition is full of people who have enough status to set national policy - is full of engineers, while the lawyers are left discussing the finer technical points of voir dire on Lawyer News.
Not that I'm saying you constructed it this way intentionally, but this argument is the rhetorical equivalent of one of those Highlights For Children "How Many Things Can You Spot Wrong With This Picture" puzzles; including, at least:
* The notion that politicians occupy high-status careers
* The notion that it's the status held by politicians that is the reason they're allowed to set national policy
* The notion that your intuition about status trumps the actual numbers for occupational prestige, which are (a) easily found and (b) immediately refute both the premise and conclusion of this argument
* The notion that most lawyers are on a track to become politicians
* The notion that lawyers would be overrepresented among politicians because people love lawyers that much, and not because the top echelons of law are disproportionately well compensated, or because those people make decades-long careers out of making connections with businesses and power brokers
* The notion that you can evaluate the overall status hierarchy position of a career solely by observing it's top echelon (here: national office-holders, and not city council-people)
Your primary failure was confusing personal popularity with social popularity with status/agency/influence. You're - mostly - continuing to make the same mistake.
Of course status is defined by caste power and social agency. What else would it be defined by? Facebook likes?
The fact that no one much likes lawyers is irrelevant. So is the fact that lawyers individually may fail to make a living from lawyering, or even that a few outliers have a social conscience.
Let me know when an engineer becomes president of the US and we can talk about the other details.
>not because the top echelons of law are disproportionately well compensated, or because those people make decades-long careers out of making connections with businesses and power brokers
This confuses cause and effect. The point of becoming a certain kind of lawyer is exactly because it's the best way to gain status and self-serving influence through that kind of activity.
Writing a compiler will never get you that kind of status, no matter what gender you are.
Nor will making a cool app.
Becoming a billionaire might. But tech billionaires tend to become billionaires because they act in aggressively self-serving ways in business and/or are well-connected, not because they're rewarded purely for being brilliant engineers.
Engineering brilliance on its own will get you GitHub stars and conferences and maybe a job or two. But no more than that.
Still don't believe me? Ask a few thousand people outside tech who their favourite engineer is.
Obama - Law
Bush - Business
Clinton - Law
Bush - Business
Reagan - Actor
Carter - Nuclear Engineer & Farmer
Ford - Law
Nixon - Law
LBJ - HS Teacher
JFK - Econ
Ike - Military
Truman - No degree
FDR - Law
Hoover - Engineer
Coolidge - Law
Harding - Journalist
Wilson - Law Prof
Taft - Law
Teddy Roosevelt - History & Politics
Law is clearly the modal occupation for presidents, but there's some diversity.
> It's now low prestige, it's just lower prestige than e.g. medicine, law or "investment banking".
Software developer and data scientist are both at the top of the list of best careers in America right now, and more people aspire to be startup CEOs than movie stars or pro athletes.
Have data for that startup CEO's? Because unless you are talking about a very narrow group of people, it hasn't been my experience at all (sure, if you ask 20-30 years old, they will say startup CEO, mostly because that is the only thing they believe they still can be, but ask 12-16 year olds and the results). Also, most people don't know what a startup CEO's really does and just expect a lot of money and ruling over the company while meeting clients at a golf course while most startup CEO's are partly broke and work 12 hours a day
Maybe they are "best careers" (although I highly doubt it - e.g. traders are way better careers), but we're talking about "prestige" here - the wow factor when you tell people what you do. When I say I'm a programmer, many roll their eyes (while acknowledging that it's easy for me to get a job). Granted I'm not a lawyer or a doctor, but let me know when they start making series about programmers like they did about lawyers (Boston Legal) or doctors (House, Grey's Anatomy).