Non sequitur. Your whole conclusion is based on an non-existing premise, or one that has little sense. It's not clear why you think this article suggests precl

Non sequitur. Your whole conclusion is based on an non-existing premise, or one that has little sense. It's not clear why you think this article suggests precluding a healthy system in which people have the ability to afford time-saving services (in exchange of their service to others, which is arguably a foundation of any sane such system). Moreover, it's not clear what does consumption have anything to do with the point of the article; it seems rather orthogonal.