If service fees reflect value, in that I actually receive a service that I want, then I have no problem. The way that the fee structure works is not of great importance provided it isn’t used to disguise the fact that I am being charged for nothing or for given no choice about what services I get.
A much bigger issue is in your first para about the changing nature of work.
Once a large proportion of workers were actively engaged in food production, that was mechanised and conglomerated and now is being automated, so very few produce our food and less will be engaged in future. Then manufacturing took over and provided jobs for the masses. Now that is being automated and despite many pious hopes (and lies) those industries are never going back to being big employers.
Boosters of automation tell us that such changes are not a worry but an opportunity. They point out that ostlers may have gone but car mechanics took their place etc. But they forget to say that once there was a job as a bowser-maid (who put petrol in your car, cleaned the windows etc) and now there isn’t. Not everybody can re-train as a software developer or robot repair mechanic. To hint at that is deceitful. The reasons are obvious.
Firstly in the numbers, (simplistically) if 10 assembly line workers are replaced by one robot and 10 robots only need one mechanic, 100 jobs have just been replaced by one.
The second is in capability. I worked on the Mini chain line at Leylands. Most of those workers were there because they had poor language skills, poor education or were not too bright, or some combination of the three. It is convenient during this argument to forget that some people are limited to simple repetitive tasks. Sheltered workshops provide just that kind of work. 70% of chain line workers were never going to retrain in a technical or service industry.
Farming and manufacturing were labour intensive. Now they are capital intensive. What does that do to the nature of our society?
Service industries are now put forward as the big hope for employment. At the moment that is happening, service provision is a large proportion of workers and IIRC still rising. There is a limit how far that trend can go. Whether efforts to automate some of that work will ever succeed remains to be seen.
From WW2 to the 1970s unemployment in Oz was typically small, about 1 1/2 %, we said we had ‘full employment’. Since then there was a big jump in 1975 and a number of peaks and troughs, from a high of some 10% in the mid 90s, to the current rate that has been dodging around 5% for 20 years. I can’t find any series that covers the last 50 years. Governments of all flavours seem to accept that we are never going back to full employment. Yet those who take benefits are belittled and castigated. That overall figure hides the fact that in some regions the rate is much higher and in some cultures families have been on benefits for generations. Until you seen it you cannot imagine how destructive those situations are. If you take away the opportunity to work people lose much more than their income.
What is going to happen when service industries become saturated or when services (like pumping petrol) are no longer required? When more repetitive tasks are automated?
The permanently unemployed underclass will grow. They are already unhappy. If they are kept in poverty and told how inferior they are as the numbers grow they will become angry. If governments and owners continue to hold out the promise that the great dream of success can be theirs for hard work, sooner or later they will work out that this is a lie. Then they will become very angry. If you think voting is becoming chaotic you ain’t seen nothing yet.