I don't expect to change your mind, but I had a very different reading of this article than you did and here are my thoughts on the 4 points that you raised:
1. I don't think it's a big secret that stamping out unions is a key part of modern management. If McKinsey and other consulting firms were management consultants, they should be even more aware of that strategy and would have been in a key position to effect that change over a large number of companies.
2. CEO salaries are certainly relevant to the working middle class, since they are commonly seen as tremendously too high and the extra money could contribute to the middle class' wage.
3. I think the point of that sentence is more like "the amount of effort it takes to become successful is significantly greater than it was when the system worked better."
4. He's not trying to be the technocratic management, he's literally arguing against its existence.
1. I don't think it's a big secret that stamping out unions is a key part of modern management. If McKinsey and other consulting firms were management consultants, they should be even more aware of that strategy and would have been in a key position to effect that change over a large number of companies.
2. CEO salaries are certainly relevant to the working middle class, since they are commonly seen as tremendously too high and the extra money could contribute to the middle class' wage.
3. I think the point of that sentence is more like "the amount of effort it takes to become successful is significantly greater than it was when the system worked better."
4. He's not trying to be the technocratic management, he's literally arguing against its existence.