The article should be read in context. I think there are three factors at play,
1) CAFE standards are more lenient for light trucks than for cars. That gives manufacturers an incentive to "truckify" ordinary family cars. Two early prime examples are the original Dodge Caravan and the PT Cruiser. Both were "trucks", invented primarily to get around CAFE standards.
2) Profit margin. 20 years ago you could buy a Taurus sedan or, for around $1,000 or $2,000 more, a Taurus wagon. Now, you can buy a Taurus sedan or, for $10,000 more, an Explorer. Same bloody car, but the "truckification" adds enough perceived value that people a much higher price difference than was common 20 years ago for the bigger trunk.
3) Comfort with debt. Nobody buys a car based on total price anymore. With people being comfortable with a monthly payment approach, nobody is balking at the extra cost of a crossover, so why offer a cheap wagon when you can offer an expensive crossover?
It also doesn't help that any hatchback or wagon now offered is made "sporty", i.e. impractical. These days, the choices pretty much are sedans or cross-overs, and people buy what is advertised. Sedans are largely money-losers, and the profit margin is in crossovers that have the price difference. So commercially, I can see how abandoning cars could work. More so if your cars are duds like the Chrysler 200 or 300 that are basically fleet staples with few consumer sales.
That said, Chrysler tried the same strategy 10 years ago and it backfired royally. If there is a gas price spike, an all-SUV lineup is very risky. I certainly would not be inclined to buy Fiat-Chryster stock right now. But what choice does Sergio Marchionne have? He tried to shop around for a buyer on multiple occasions but never found any takers. So maximizing current profits based on a "truckification" strategy is probably the least bad decision he could have made.
I have personally given up on cheap wagons ever making a comeback and paid the premium for a crossover a few years ago.