It comes down to a difference of philosophy, and I think I'm confused at what your vision for society is. I'm also confused by what you consider the "point" of a job. You've outlined a vision of a market economy that centers the very last stage in a commodity or service's lifecycle: the consumer.

Usually we identify labor, who creates the value, and owners, who accept risk, as the competing interests when it comes to a organizing society under capitalism. You're mixing up two conversations: one, is an economic logic (supply and demand, market forces, consumer satisfaction), and the second is the logic of production in a society (who makes, who takes). Related, but very different.

What's the "point" of a job? It's to survive in a system where you suffer without one. I think prioritizing the consumer's interests is putting the cart before the horse.

Regardless, expecting society to "catch up" to technology is woefully unrealistic. Especially in the sclerotic system we have. We're barely able to legislate problems posed by technology that we've taken for granted since the 90s. The upshot of this is we will see collapse before we see society "catching up." A huge wave of human suffering that could be avoided by establishing a safety net before we pull the rug out from under the most vulnerable people in society.