Most "digital" photographers are similar to the 3-in-1 coffee makers. Or the instant-all-in-1 food packs. They can prepare a meal faster than any gourmet chefs can. And they don't earn more.
Most "digital" photographers can shoot GIGABYTES of data (THOUSANDS of pics) for every shoot. In those days, film photographers find it hard to go beyond HUNDREDS of pics per shoot. I certainly wouldn't pay the crap that comes out of these "digital" photographers ....
Point being so what if anyone can do everything themselves? It is the final output that maters.
I've worked against a couple of photographers like that who were from a company specializing in sports photography and had an incident one day because of it. They came with their fancy printer kiosks that allowed the customer to select the photo they wanted to buy and their L-series lenses. They pointed at anything, whether it was moving or not, whether it was part of the sport or not, and held the shutter release for 30 seconds or so and then, moved on to something else. A chimpanzee could have done what they'd done and their photos looked as though a chimpanzee had been involved, or so I was told.
The problem is widespread, but there are plenty of photographers who know how to work the equipment and have the eyes to see what's interesting, and over the past 10 years, they've been coming to grips with post processing. Of course, there are those who hand their work to an assistant and continue to shoot. (Wouldn't that be amazing?)
I'm all for getting rid of professionals who aren't professional because they steal from those who pay them but since the dSLR dropped in price, anyone who can hold a camera can call themselves a professional.