TFA seems to come close to arguing that certain businesses should plan to provide value, then fold within a few years. The idea had never occurred to me. It seems to have some difficult implications. If you're the founder of a business and your mission statement involves having "failed" within five years, do you tell your employees that? Or do you pretend to want permanent growth and let them buy houses close to work…
Anyway, where there is demand, there should be supply, and conversely. The car manufacturing market boomed a couple of times. Ditto for bicycles. Home appliances as well. The PC market peaked in the 2000's, now there is no point in keeping supplying these clunky metal boxes. Today the mobile apps market is very saturated, only 7 years after the App Store launched. Once customers buy a product, they won't be on the market for some time, until the product gets amortized or dies, a big innovation occurs, or what have you. When 80% of customers already bought the product, the market is mature and concentration occurs, that's always been the case. Maybe innovation getting faster is what is happening, so companies will be more shortlived. But the pace is bound by the customer's income, so the bright side is there is a feedback loop.
I think an honest founder should at least try to find employees that understand the risks and pay them accordingly. Obviously, there will be many bad players, but prospective employees will also get wiser from the Webvans, Zyngas and Groupons.