The condescending and closed-minded tone detract from the author's obvious point (startup GOOD, job bad). A more serious consideration of both sides would have proved more useful.
For example, a very serious benefit of having a lowly 'job' is to have a set schedule and be able to make it to every one of your kid's baseball games. The debate is not a clear cut good vs. evil argument so it should not be treated as such.
Not to mention, if it weren't for jobs, who would work at his startup? The 'jobs suck' mentality fails on the criterion of universality.
And, though it sounds boring, stability and routine are big advantages, and they don't necessitate becoming a drone. I find that having a job provides me with a basic structure around which my non-job activities can more readily crystallize.
It's important to compare like against like. There's a bias in favor of startups because the relative positions are different; he's comparing being the owner of one against being an entry- or mid-level employee in the other.
Working for a company can be good if you do it right. The issue is that, in order for it to still be worth it to come in to work after about 6 months, you need to become someone's protege and get beneficial consideration regarding project allocation, career development, and responsibilities. Much of whether or not this happens is based on luck, not performance or even talent, so it usually takes 3-5 rounds before getting it to work. Most people conclude after 1-2 rounds that the game is just rigged against them and that jobs suck.
For example, a very serious benefit of having a lowly 'job' is to have a set schedule and be able to make it to every one of your kid's baseball games. The debate is not a clear cut good vs. evil argument so it should not be treated as such.