Does it bother anyone else when the author uses the term "they" when referring to a corporation, and ascribe emotions to it?
Is it to your employer's benefit for your to be financially dependent on them? Maybe. Unhappy employees tend to also be less productive. They may be willing to put up with worse conditions, including lower pay, but that doesn't universally lead to greater profitability.
The goal of a company is to maximize profit, generally speaking. That doesn't mean "you making money for them as long as possible." It means "you making as much money for them as possible." There's an important distinction there. An employee whose net profitability is 1% of his paycheck isn't exactly a high performer.
To categorically state that "Corporate america is a trap for anyone who wants to stop working prior to 60 yrs old" is to deny the existence of personal choice and accountability. It's only a trap if you choose to fall into it. The corporation did not force you to buy that McMansion, or finance the $70,000 pickup truck, or buy a $1400 cell phone with a $100/mo plan, or pick up Starbucks every day on the way to work, or buy tailored and monogrammed dress shirts.
"There is no solution here for most folks, and it’s a shame." Absolutely NOT TRUE. The solution is to step off the hedonic treadmill, stop mindlessly spending money, and take the time to evaluate what actually makes you happy.
I agree, though, that employer-sponsored/non-portable health insurance inhibits mobility. I understand the motivations behind the origins of the tax break, but IMO it's high time to extend that tax break beyond just employers.
