Hmph. I think this piece makes the same mistake that a lot of critiques of capitalism make, and that's assuming that there's an over-arching conspiracy of some sort. Even talking about the capital-owning class makes the mistake of thinking that one business would be willing to put themselves at risk for the benefit of others. For example, it talks about how people only working 15 hours a week would be "mortally dangerous" to the "ruling class" (he doesn't appear to explain why, but I assume he means because it would reduce the number of consumers to a product) which might be true, but doesn't explain why any given company would - in his own words - "shell out money to workers they dont really need to employ". The answer is that the businesses do need these employees. Society might function without them, but that business wouldn't.
He has a friend who used to be a poet (Though presumably not a very good one) and the front of an indie rock band (a... good use of one's time? It's assumed that all art is, necessarily, worthy. I'd question that significantly - if your art is without sufficient merit that people that aren't your mum don't like it enough to support your lifestyle, maybe what you're producing is a load of old dog-balls and less worthy than being a corporate lawyer?) who then become a corporate lawyer and hated it. Good for him.
But ultimately, I think what people would really hate, is being a fucking farmer. There's a reason why people chose, at the first opportunity open to them, to flee the agricultural lifestyle en-masse and move into cities. Ditto, as soon as it was viable for them to do so, they then left industrial production. The only way that our modern technology allows for a 15-hour working week is by being so highly automated that it's not the traditional sense of producing something that originally attracted people to trades.
I wonder which section he classes himself as. A "Real, productive worker," or one having a "bullshit job". I've got a guess!
