Per the first and second points, googles needs SEO’s because otherwise the search results would be non-relevant. And my point is exactly what the author stated - on-page SEO work is relatively trivial compared to off-page, and off-page largely consists of link building. And so, without the link-based page rank algorithm, a large piece of SEO work goes away and perhaps people start to wise up and realize that the on-page stuff isn’t that hard. Follow the best practices and integrate it into your content production work-flow. Educate your staff instead of paying lofty prices for external SEO companies. Like the author said, it doesn’t take much time to teach.

The third point states that Google needs SEO’s building inbound links because otherwise they’d never find content to index. This makes no sense. Create a site-map, submit it to the search engines, and add it to your robots.txt file. I’ve created many brand new sites that get indexed without ever having a single inbound link. Google subsequently tries to use inbound links as a means to attribute value to individual pages, which is another issue.

The fourth point credits spammers for helping Google fix problems with their search engine. Sure, but this is like crediting bank robbers for helping police improve their detective work. Every software company on the planet revises it’s product based on feedback from the field. There’s nothing specific to SEO about this.

The fifth, and last point, really doesn’t seem to make a point at all beyond saying SEOs are making money helping clients optimize their content. I fail to see how this supports the argument that Google needs SEOs.

Finally, SEOs do not create content. They optimize existing content for search. There’s a huge difference.