Personally I find that the purpose of the clock should be mainly restricted to setting a well defined amount of time for a complete game. How the players divide their time during the game should be up to them. 

Knowing that the average game lasts 38 moves (i didn't check but i trust Smyslov_Fan) then it is logical to not put the timecontrol before the average game duration as this would bring extra and unnecessary limitations in how people want to spend their time.

There is also a reason why not to put the first timecontrol too far from the average game duration. As mentioned in my blogarticle: http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2012/04/deurne-wint-de-zilveren-toren.html, there are players which would just let their time run out without playing any extra moves.   Extra time should be given when it is clear that the game lasts longer in number of moves than the average gameduration.

The average game lasts ~38 moves. If the time control is for 40 moves, most games, especially between amateurs, will be decided in the first time control. Even for games that last longer than 40 moves, the game will usually have passed the critical middle game phase and have entered the endgame phase by move 40. 

If there is to be a change in time controls, it would probably be to consolidate all secondary time controls into one: G/60 with 1 minute (or perhaps even a 90 second) increment. 

But I see absolutely nothing wrong with the current time controls. 

What exactly is your objection?