Trust me, G+ is very profitable. That's why they are doing it... it is a business decision. It benefits the user, too, as it provides the same functionality as Google Reader plus the option of being interactive. Nothing is lost, and much is to be gained.

You're correct that many will whine and shift to an alternative reader, but if they move to a similarly antiquated one, they'll eventually move on.

There's no need to learn anything new with G+ if you ignore that additional features, but you might find it beneficial to engage with the quick learning curve.

It won't make a difference any more than it would have made a difference to protest when video stores started pulling VHS tapes in favor of DVDs (and later, shutting down all together). RSS feeds are an antiquated and inferior technology, and even though many people used to them will complain about changing to something better, it won't halt the progress. Remember also that Google isn't a government organization... they are perfectly entitled to take business decisions that benefit them (and in this case, their users too).

G+ is now the #2 social network and gaining quickly on Facebook. The perception that "nobody wants it" is because most people misunderstand social networks to be like Facebook where there is a "wall" where you directly post/share. G+ is essentially a layer of higher-level information built into the existing Google infrastructure... it is widely used, despite most users not even realize they are using it. That will change in time.

The cessation of Reader has nothing to do with a lack of resources available. It has everything to do with the desire to shift those resources to something more productive for both Google and their user base. They are well aware that many people will dig their heels in and stick with something like Feedly, but they know that as time passes, people will move onto more robust services and G+ will be one option some will move onto.