NPR has some fantastic reporting on licensing in the beauty industry and how it not only entrenches existing players but turned out to be really harmful to African American communities: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/epis...
Sounds pretty dang engineery to me.
And therein lies the confusion. There is no level at which a mechanic becomes an engineer. You can be both a mechanic and an engineer, but these are separate tracks with separate skills and training. A skilled mechanical engineer can be an inept mechanic, and vice versa. The fact that you don't understand traditional engineering shows why you consider programmers to be "engineers."
The first rate engineers I've known were competent mechanics as well. A traditional engineering course of study involves lots of time in the shop.
A mechanic becomes an engineer when he goes beyond merely implementing "book" solutions - when he starts understanding the "book" solutions, why they work, and where they come from.
But after that the article goes off the rails trying to draw a distinction. Programming above a certain level is engineering, just like being a mechanic above a certain level is engineering.
Unregulated, unlicensed software engineering has also produced stupendous advances in programming in the last few decades, not remotely matched by advances in other heavily regulated and licensed professions.