Seriously, what gives the author the right to blanketly declare the lives of the middle class to be souless, meaningless, and that their jobs are bullshit? How does he not realize that he is projecting his own insecurity and outdated ideas about "authenticity" on to these people.
Honestly, I've found that most people don't really give a shit about doing something truly meaningful and soul-fulfilling in their work. I may, you probably do too. But most people are fine with showing up, doing what they have to do, then getting out and spending time with the people that they love. What is so wrong with that?
Sure, we get it, the visual signifiers of the exotic have changed over the last 10 years. Once upon a time in the UK it was Superclubs and being part of something fancy and opulent. Now, the iconography of the working-class has been appropriated - and people want to buy into that, probably based on the tail-end of the skeuomorphic thing - where we were desiring to feel connected to nostalgia based aesthetics.
But what the author doesn't get is that people are deeply social. Sure, the economic and cultural environment will shift things the modes of interactions - but people will continue forming relationships with friends, relaying experiences, dancing to dumb songs with their friends. The artcile had some great observations, but maybe rethink framing this as "a problem" and stick to the description of culture (which was actually interesting).