This is pretty interesting, but it would be nice if it used more than argument by assertion (i.e. "Labor is weaker, executive salaries are higher, life sucks more") to make its points. I personally don't doubt most of the assumptions, but it would be nice if there were meatier bits of evidence given to support them.
It also smells slightly of Enron-opportunism. People have jumped on the high-profile collapse to endorse many different (and sometimes contradictory) viewpoints. Any time something of that scale happens, people latch onto it; after the Pentagon/WTC attacks, people used the horrible event to argue in favor of reduced limitations on concealed weapons (because an armed passenger could have shot the terrorists dead) and increased limitations on firearms in general.
If you're looking for a more meaty argument - more than argument by assertion - you may want to go to TAP. It has a lot of great articles that go more in depth on this subject, including one written by Ralph Nader , head and presidential candidate of the Green Party.