Model vs reality
I like the siren call of the intellectual purity of the model expressed in the article. The model predicts that when there is a shortage of people with a certain skill set, then rates will rise, and whether it's a job or consultant will be relatively unimportant.
If, however, people outnumber the need for a given task, then a race to the bottom in the employers favour will ensue. History is littered with cases where this imbalance existed for one reason or another.
So this is the baseline of historic capitalism, red in tooth and claw, without any market distortions such as unions, minimum wage, barriers to entry (qualifications, regulations etc), competition rules - capital and skills in demand do well and the rest not nearly so well.
Accepting that any changes to the base model likely have a cost, what seems to be missing is a debate on how to determine those distortions and costs that give the most bang for the buck, and efficiently lead to an acceptable society. Given that I'd rather not rely on the fickle whim and potential unpleasantness of people (me included) to underpin things, that, with some reluctance, leads to the government getting the gig, on the probably unproven assumption that it evens things out a bit.