Not precisely a rebuttal (you missed my point) but an interesting point in it's own right which I read was "Can you evaluate dollar value of privacy using the dollar value of your income stream?" And doing a sort of solve for X thing where you end up with hours invested in maintaining privacy becoming valued at hours invested in generating income. If I misunderstood please let me know, but assuming that I got the gist of it...
For me, I don't believe there is even a piece wise approximation between time investment and privacy value because the tools are so much different and the available actions being constrained. To illustrate where I get hung up on that reasoning, if you build a phishing page setup and contract a botnet to spam few hundred million people with phone phish-spam, you might get a lot of "income" for a relatively small time investment, similarly you can get greatly increase your privacy by investing in forged identity documents. So at the least we would have to constrain the hours invested in legitimate ways to enhance ones privacy and legitimate ways to enhance one's income.
Next there is an issue of facilitating the effort, so when company A sells me raw materials at a modest markup they facilitate my ability to make a living using them to provide said raw materials.If instead they were to charge an extortionate mark up, I might still be able to make a living but I might find the effort to do so requiring many many more hours of time investment. So at what point do the actions of my raw materials supplier work for or against my efforts at generating income. Similarly the provider of my tools can make it easier or less easy for me to maintain my privacy, so for example a Google Drive plugin which let me keep everything on their servers encrypted. If Google provides that then its a small number of hours invested to enhance my privacy, but if I have to rely on a third party who is acting without support from Google, then it takes many more hours for the same level of enhancement.
Given these built in and essentially intractable forces which affect the efficiency of hours invested needed to achieve the desired result, I am not persuaded by your claim that I can evaluate the 'worth' of privacy using your proposed reasoning.
Google can, and apparently does, to things like warrant notices where if you are suddenly asked to reconfirm your acceptance of their terms of service it's a signal that a warrant was served to them that they had to turn over your data. I think these sorts of things help them in the eyes of their users and are not illegal. They meet the letter of the law and so are not actionable, just as their transferring of rights around amongst their national subsidiaries is a completely legal way of not paying more tax.
My call to action was to try to think of ways that would make things like the PRISM data not useful to the NSA and yet meet their obligations under the law. I mentioned one (in cloud encryption with client side decryption) but I am sure there are others.