Meh. It's more statistics than calculus.
I mean, try doing actuarial statistics without calculus.
Hmm, you have a point with some things but isn't mathematics (especially the higher level ones) rather obsolete? Like, when will one use the quadratic formula or even a simple find the angle. Even if you do use mathematics for your job, won't it be few (relatively speaking).
This is actually one I found rather interesting recently. See, I study statistics, and so I do a lot of maths which is regularly applied to lots of situations. The question was actually quite simple: we wanted to find out how long it would take for a last name to "die out". That is, assuming a traditional society where each person takes the last name of their father, then you know a name will die out if a family gives birth to no sons, or their sons don't have children. Each enough.
The trick ends up being to find a probability distribution that models the birth of each family. When we did this, we had to solve a quadratic along the way. After you have the distribution, there's lots of things you can do (mainly, find the probability of the last name dying out), but that's beside the point for this argument.
Now, this type of process, called a branching process, happens a lot in society - in fact, it's one of the BEST models for tracking genetic mutations. However, to solve the model and find a solution, we needed to know how to solve quadratics.
Okay, so let's look a bit more commercey now - you can very easily define a business in terms of the amount of money that it spends (consumption, C) to give some amount of output (x). You can show that the demand (d) of a business is given by the equation d=(1-C)^(-1)*x.
So, this is where it gets interesting - you know your consumption and your output, the question is, are you meeting your demand? Logical thinking says that if (1-C)^(-1) exists AND is non-negative, then your business is sustainable (or usually it's said to be feasible).
Okay, cool, so what does this have to do with quadratics and angles? Well, this problem and solution I've just told you about is actually useless in its entirety unless you think about it in terms of vectors. So, you need to define vectors. However, you cannot use vectors unless you first understand how to define angles between them, their magnitude, etc. So, you need to have some method of working with those - say, sine, cosine, and tangent. Just like the case of the branching process - it's incredibly relevant, and the question and answer themselves don't directly use the stuff you learn in high school. But without using the stuff from high school, this more interesting stuff wouldn't exist in the first place.
Sure - you could just be lazy, not learn the stuff in high school, and then get a computer to do it all for you. Computers can do that nowadays. The problem is, that you don't have an appreciation for this stuff, and you'll never be able to do it yourself. The moment your program crashes because your problem has changed slightly and the usual method doesn't apply, you need someone else who knows this stuff to do it instead. However, if everyone takes the easy way out, nobody will know how to setup the computer, and we'll (in essence) lose the solution to these problems.
Later on, when you do get to answering these questions - you know what? You will probably use a computer, and never have an issue. BUT, someone will have to know how to do this stuff properly, and in high school, you have no way of knowing if that person is you. Just because you think you don't like maths, that doesn't mean you won't learn to love something that requires you know these basics. So that's what high school does - it teaches you the basics so that if you decide later that you do like it, you can do on and learn about it more.
Tl;dr - maths is super useful later in its educational life. However, often the more interesting problems, and ones that students will care about, can't be done until you can do the simple stuff first.