I will readily agree that most common systems unnecessarily bundle multiple high stake issues. For example, most people (me included from time to time) stop listening past "you get a raise of x%" in an annual review.
However, 1 wrong thing (i.e. unnecessary bundling") doesn't invalidate whole whole process.
For example, most performance processes involve goal-setting (I don't know about you, but I find that very very appealing), performance evaluation against goals, soft skill review (i.e. how much do you stress out your teammates?), and plan of action for the next year. Have I received career changing advices through performance review? You bet I have. For example, I pick software engineering because of distribution of my grades (performance review at K12 level!). For another example, don't make stupid & potentially misunderstood jokes.
Sure, continuous & informal feedbacks are important. However, so are formal processes, including feedback and evaluation. Have I improved? How the hell would I know if I don't have things noted down? Should I be promoted? How the hell would another person know if there is no papertrail of evidence of excellence? What am I good at? What role should I play in this team? How should I grow? All of these questions require careful contemplation over behaviors and performance in a long period (a year or at least a few months). Maybe all of you Bill Gates are so smart that you don't need them. But I am mere mortal, and I love feedback.
So, for the love of craftmanship, dedicate time and resources to performance review. It will only matter WHEN YOU MAKE IT MATTER. That's the thing. You can drive the best car the in the world badly if you hate driving. Similarly, if you think that you are so smart that no system can properly evaluate you, well, the system will fail. To be more precise, you fail the system.
All of which are, obviously, interesting. I mean, even today, people are asking "the rich" to pay more taxes. Even today, people are looking for way to help their fellow human beings (in US, the current fights are cheaper education and protection for pre-existing conditions).
So, imagine a future with higher taxes and basic income. In that case, the whole shebang about "competition for jobs" looks really different. I mean, if you are guaranteed livable income, low-skill jobs will be the first to go (surprised! Raise your hand if you like to scrub toilets for $7/hr). If you are guaranteed livable income, skill acquisition becomes much less risky.
But of course, read their lips: no new taxes (and thus no new social safety nets whatsoever; don't you know that if you bail out the poor, society will disintegrate into chaos?)