I've found it helpful (both for convincing, and for clarifying your own thoughts) to phrase things like this in ways that are compatible with "mainstream economists" view of how things work.
The standard riposte to arguments like the one in the article is "well, then someone would pay their workers better and make more money, and those firms would come to dominate."
The response to the response is something like, "managers are being paid in non-pecuniary status benefits via underpaying their underlings, in a way that reduces total firm output, and there are coordination & principal/agent problems in getting management to agree not to be compensated in this way".
The standard riposte to arguments like the one in the article is "well, then someone would pay their workers better and make more money, and those firms would come to dominate."
The response to the response is something like, "managers are being paid in non-pecuniary status benefits via underpaying their underlings, in a way that reduces total firm output, and there are coordination & principal/agent problems in getting management to agree not to be compensated in this way".