>you are likely overestimating your own contributions at work

That’s the logical fallacy anyone is going to be pushed to as soon as judging their individual worth in an intrinsically collective endeavor will happen.

People in lowest incomes which would not be able to integrate in society without direct social funds will be seen as parasites by some which are wealthier, just like ultra rich will be considered parasites by less wealthy people.

> People in lowest incomes which would not be able to integrate in society without direct social funds will be seen as parasites by some which are wealthier, just like ultra rich will be considered parasites by less wealthy people.

Your use of the word parasite, especially in the context of TFA, reminds me of the article James Michener wrote for Reader’s Digest in 1972 recounting President Nixon’s trip to China that year. In an anecdote from the end of the trip, Michener explained that Chinese officials gave parting gifts to the American journalists and their coordinating staffs covering the presidential trip. In the case of the radio/TV journalists, those staffs included various audio and video technicians.

As Michener told it, the officials’ gifts to the technicians were unexpectedly valuable and carefully chosen; but, when the newspaper and magazine writers in the group got their official gifts, they turned out to be relatively cheap trinkets. When one writer was bold enough to complain about this apparent disparity, a translator replied that the Chinese highly valued those who held technical skills (especially in view of the radical changes then going on in China’s attempt to rebuild itself).

“So what do you think about writers?” the complainer responded.

To that, the translator said darkly, “We consider writers to be parasites.”