It's a genre which I think will always have a ready made market if it continues to tweak its image to appeal to the next generation of emotional teenagers and over zealous scene kids.

Technically, there are many incompetent pop-punk bands, the likes of Good Charlotte and Boys Like Girls come to mind, however moving away from the straightened hair and soppy movie soundtracks, there are bands who play a similar style of music with undeniable talent.

One need only listen to Jimmy Eat Worlds 'Clarity' to see how truly exceptional bands of this style can be, when focused on creating music. However, despite creating a fantastic album, JEW (Kinda weird abbreviation) were released from their label due to the record being a commercial flop, therefore they moved into a poppier, more mainstream sound in order to maximise profits and commercial success.

I can't honestly sit back and criticize any musician for wanting to make as much money as possible, as I would do the same thing had I been in their position, however it's the success of those bands who are not technically competent and perhaps as a result of a more dumbed down approach, more commercially successful that creates a stigma with many 'educated' listeners with this genre.

As earlier highlighted by another member, The Thermals are another really good example of what pop-punk can be.
To answer your point directly, I do not think pop punk is dying, bands in this genre seem to have a life cycle. You can't have longevity when your gimmick revolves around being young and hip. I.E. Blink 182 cannot be freshfaced youngsters who sing about first dates and skateboards in their middle age, a factor which I believe makes their re-emergence ridiculous.
There will continue to be more pop punk bands emerging from the woodwork as older ones fade out, because as I highlighted earlier, there is a definite market for their product.

just sounds like 3oh!3 style hip hop being directed at wannabe scenesters

This song was a jammer back in like 8th grade.

Uh, no artists particularly care about the listener. They make the music they enjoy and hope that others will appreciate it (unless forced by the label to record music that is expected to sell). If anything, pop artists are relatively more interested in crafting music that the public will like.

Pop/punk as a genre is rather lame. The artists tend to be goofing off, as opposed to doing the best they could do.

How is your second sentence not 100% contradicting your first sentence? No artists particularly care about the listener... Pop artists are more interested in crafting music the listening public will like....

How does anyone create music the public will like without caring about said public's opinion?

Think of it as "caring about" vs "catering to" or "enticing despite one's best instincts." Pop music often appeals to base instincts. Pop artists don't seem to mind if they're helping to turn this into a more sex-obsessed world.

I'll just sit here and wait for someone to take issue with you mentioning this in a negative light. ;)

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just super pretentious. Honestly. Think about that for a second.

Now, do you really think the general public is so stupid and simple minded that they need to be raised by pop stars? That the average person looks at a pop star and thinks 'THAT is how I'm supposed to be!' as opposed to 'I would like to have that (perceived) level of fame and attention'?

Pop culture and mainstream society have the ultimate co-dependent relationship, they give each other what they want regardless of need, whether you as an individual agree to what the mass decides is kind of irrelevant outside your head.

Your argument basically mimics a popular misguided line about how fast food restaurants should operate. Here's a minor twist to your last statement:

Fast food restaurants don't seem to mind if they're helping to turn this into a more obese world.

Same logic, same indirect passing of the buck. It's not up to the fast food restaurant to ensure individuals maintain a healthy lifestyle. Same as it's not up to the pop star to make sure we all live in what, some kind of chaste boob-less world?

I happen to also be opposed to the fast food industry. As with that, who says I blame it all on pop musicians? But we're not talking about "the average person." We are talking about young people, often unintelligent young people. They're easily influenced. And pop-punk is like punk minus real desire for positive social change, plus punk has relatively lousy musicianship and it has unwritten rules against lyrics that focus much on sex and love, which is the stuff that easily hooks the mainstream audience. All that makes pop-punk mostly unsustainable on the charts.

Disclaimer: there is plenty of decent pop music.