FI: Active Future vs Systemic and passive

If you are interested in the markets, then yes, it's a good place to begin a career - it is not the slam dunk, Drexel Burnham, often whimsically written about world it used to be. And, candidly, I don't even think that is an indictment of the industry or the roles within. 

From a structural perspective, I'd agree with you that fixed income generally sets up to weather the passive indexing storm better than equities do by and large. Part of that is the securities themselves but the institutions within the industry play the biggest part. Insurance companies, for example, have needs far beyond indexing - although I could argue that buying portfolio's 'at cost' and matching liabilities isn't the most exciting thing to do. But you still need analysts to sign off that those credits won't blow up and look for opportunities. Same with traders and PM's. Pension funds are similar where they are more 'active' with liability matching or large investment needs that again go beyond just buying an agg fund and calling it a day. Not to mention all the central bank intervention, banking capital requirements that drive short term/government markets, etc. etc. etc. etc. Some minor examples - but you get my point. High yield and the like also offer plenty of opportunities for managers to find ways to outperform. Others as well like distressed debt funds, CLO shops, asset owners themselves who insource management of large fixed income portfolios, etc. 

Careers are harder and harder to come by which is your biggest issue. Especially right now, teams are getting axed - it's not particularly pretty. Junior roles want a few years of experience. Teams are running leaner, analysts cover more names than before, PM's more clients and traders more volume. Finance is a maturing industry - it's not going away but the sheer number of seats is shrinking dramatically.