Sorry, but design, typesetting and typography done in html is far superior. Why limit to paper only? Last time I checked, most typography features are implemented in firefox/chrome. Html is the replacement. You limit yourself with static information on paper using Tex. Tex falls into the category of pdf, doc, docx, odt to me. Deprecated, because we do not put things on paper today, but we put things on the internet.
Did I miss the irony somewhere? Last time I checked (justified) line breaking was a mess, protrusion is not supported and generally it's quite hard to handle font metrics without using a canvas. I guess you're right that this is changing, but it's nowhere near the quality and the ease (yes even that) of TeX or InDesign. And if you use some content preprocessor like pandoc or xslt the limitation of static information on paper isn't a problem anyway.
Btw, if you like to have more control over the layout have a look at ConTeXt, it's quite nice especially its modular approach.
You've never viewed a PDF on a monitor?
Personally, for archival and offline viewing purposes I much prefer a PDF made with LaTeX than a copy of or export of a web page.
The only time I'd ever prefer a web page is if it's really a large set of pages with a complicated hypertext structure. That's the only place where HTML shines. Needless to say, a resume usually doesn't fall in to this category.
+ I care about design, typesetting and typography
+ it's FOSS
+ it's cross-platform
+ it doesn't cost me an arm compared to the alternative
+ it's unbelievably lightweight (e.g MacTeX basic) compared to the alternative
+ it allows for code factorization
+ it's text-based which means:
- drivable form the shell
- automatable from makefiles
- editable in vim
- can be generated with e.g erb or jinja2
- naturally handled by git/hg
i.e it's composable in a unix workflow
TeX has its warts and a steep learning curve, but there's a slight difference between obsolete technology and mature technology. Especially when there's no replacement.